Casino Royale (2006) Poster

(2006)

User Reviews

Review this title
2,559 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Perfect? Of course not, but it's the closest I've seen to Ian Fleming's novels
planktonrules6 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
41 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For many years, I have longed to see a James Bond series actually based on the books. While some of the Bond films have been a lot of fun, most have practically nothing to do with the great Ian Fleming novels. Sadly, in a few cases (such as YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), about the only similarity between the books and the movies were the titles!

In fact, the original CASINO ROYALE was a horrid film in practically every way except for the music. While some of the characters were retained, the movie was an abysmal mess--a very high budget and confusing mess. It was purported to be a comedy, though practically none of the film was funny and like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, the plot was impossible to follow and bore no similarity to the book. Fans of Ian Fleming usually twitch with disgust at even hearing the title of this god-awful film--thank goodness someone FINALLY wanted to do the Fleming novel some justice!

In the books, Bond was a bourbon drinking, chain-smoking assassin. CASINO ROYALE was the first book and Bond was his most human in it. In the book, Bond struggled with guilt over the many people he'd killed--and they were NOT killed in crazy and exotic ways like they were in most of the movies. Most were either shot or killed with his bare hands. Bond was, above all else, a killer--not quite as sexy or sophisticated as he was in the films. While Craig isn't quite the same as Fleming's Bond (he's missing the scar down his cheek), he's much closer to the novels than any prior Bond incarnation. I miss that Bond and am glad that, in part, the new CASINO ROYALE finally features much of this cold-blooded and flawed character.

Now I do understand that EON Productions couldn't repeat the novel completely--heck, it was set in the early 1950s and many allowances needed to be made for current events. And as far as the updates went, they generally were in the same spirit as the original movie and the cat and mouse game between Le Chiffre and Bond is essentially that of the novel.

All this does NOT mean that the movie will only appeal to those who read the books. There are still many exciting chase scenes and stunts like you'd expect to see in a Bond film but fortunately Bond didn't seem so invincible. Daniel Craig's version of Bond could apparently do what the prior Bonds could do, but you'll notice throughout the film that he's cut and bruised--not exactly a man of steel. I loved this and it did tend to make the unrealness of the stunts seem a tad more believable. Plus, again, Fleming would be thrilled as several stories he wrote talked about the toll on Bond's body.

The film was well-constructed, stunt heavy but not enough to alienate purists like myself and intelligently written. About the only people who will strongly dislike this film are those who are looking for a reincarnation of Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Craig certainly doesn't look or act like either of these two guys. While I could easily imagine Connery's or Moore's characters sipping martinis while engaged in gay banter with their arch-enemies, Craig is more the type you'd expect to beat the enemies to death with his bare hands--like a REAL government assassin. Wow, do I like the change!

PS--The Aston Martin DBS V12 in this movie is a gorgeous car and it should be with a base price of $265,000. In the film, it is destroyed and I truly hope this was a model or something other than one of these great sports cars--it would be tragic if they really did in this car!
10/10
The best Bond i have ever seen, Daniel Craig's first best Bond 007 my third favorite
ivo-cobra825 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
157 out of 232 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale (2006) is without doubt one of the best Ian Fleming's James Bond. This is the real film, the real Bond film unlike lackluster sh**y Die Another Day stupid movie! I have enjoyed this film so damn much! I love this film to death, from action sequence to actors and the plot story I love it. The film is very realistic serious well portrayed it has no jokes. It is my favorite because it is action, action, action and even more action. Casino Royale (2006) is the twenty-first spy film in the Eon Productions James Bond film series, and is the third screen adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel of the same name.

I make no apologies for believing that Daniel Craig really did become the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond. I'm a hard-core James Bond fan I love a lot of the films that over 50 years were made. Casino Royale is simply my third favorite James Bond film it is in my top 10 favorite James Bond films. This movie is interesting totally mind-blowing. It is highly entertaining, espionage with a lot of action sequence. Not boring or lame but believable well acted.

After lackluster fiasco and disaster Die Another Day (2002) producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli fired actor Pierce Brosnan because he wanted too much money to shoot a fifth Bond movie, and producers had already decided to reboot the long-running spy saga with a grittier approach. Daniel Craig ultimately took over the role for 2006's Casino Royale and has gone on to achieve success as arguably the most popular 007 since the days of Sean Connery.

Daniel Craig is fantastic as new James Bond tough I love Pierce Brosnan this is the real deal. Actress Samantha Bond also left James Bond saga after 4 movies since Brosnan was fired and this movie did not used Miss Moneypenny.

Eva Green as the new Bond's girl Vesper Lynd did an excellent performance and a fine job playing James Bond's first true love. Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together. Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated. One night-slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty-her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind. In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.

Judi Dench as M is always awesome and she did a fantastic well done job. In GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough and this movie she did a well done excellent job. I love the actress and I had a blast watching her on screen.

Mads Mikkelsen is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists. The actor did incredible job as the main villain and I really absolutely loved his performance.

Jeffrey Wright plays the new undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament:' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis.

The Italian actress Caterina Murino plays Solange who reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage.

Armed with a license to kill, Secret Agent James Bond sets out on his first mission as 007, and must defeat a private banker to terrorists in a high stakes game of poker at Casino Royale, Montenegro, but things are not what they seem.

Bond (Daniel Craig) is chasing a terrorist bomber Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan) who was contracted by terrorist organization to make and sell a bomb. While Bond chases him he has to jump on a several sky cranes and on a building to continue the chase. Real stunt performance from stunt man and actor Daniel Craig. He chases Mollaka to embassy in Madagascar and shots him and shoots a nearby gas tank makes a huge explosion and flees with Mollaka's bag, he finds his cell phone with text message the word "ELLIPSIS."

A trail leads Bond to Nassau, Bahamas to Alex Dmitrios (Simon Abkarian) in which Bond seduces his wife Solange and find's out he goes to Miami USA. Bond pursues Dmitrios to Miami airport kills Dmitrios with a knife in self defense tracks down another bomber.

Bond stops the terrorist and takes the bomb away from the airplane. Saves all the passengers and the plane. Great tanker truck chase on the airport. Great action sequence Bond saves over 200 lives in this movie that is why I love it so much. Bond stops the tanker before hitting the plane with all the gas and the bomb attached to it and he attaches bomb on a terrorist. Excellent action sequence!

Bond has to fight Le Chiffre in high poker game with Felix Leiter. Bond kill's two black men in which Le Chiffre lost their money and single handle with fists kill's them. Bond is such a bad-ass in this movie. Le Chiffre and his blond girl Valenka (Ivana Milicevic) poison Bond's martini with digitalis, causing Bond to suffer severe tachycardia. Bond runs to his car for defibrillator but passes out. Vesper Lynd comes and save's his life. Bond comes back in to Casino finishes the game and beats Le Chiffre at the game. Bond drives Aston Martin DBS great action sequence.

10/10 This movie is directed by Martin Campbell who directed GoldenEye my all time favorite Pierce Brosnan 007 film. Casino Royale (2006) is my third favorite film in the Bond 007 saga and I love this movie to death! I love it so damn much!
10/10
"Millenium" series James Bond - top-of-the-line!
winner5522 November 2006
In the original Bond series, only a handful of films really attempted to touch base with the novels of Ian Fleming. "Dr. No" showed the Fleming feeling for character and action, but introduced elements to the plot that detracted from the 'hard-boiled' spy story that Fleming thought he was writing; "Thunderball" came close, but that was because Fleming developed the story on commission for the film. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" had the book's plot pretty down pat, and was made in a kind of 'grand adventure' style, but of course it suffered from the choice of Lazenby - a professional model, not an actor - as Bond. "The Living Daylights" showed the producers' interest in returning to the roots, but Dalton was uncomfortable playing Bond, and uncomfortable with the wisecracks which had become part of the character's schtick - and which were really badly written for the Dalton films. "Goldeneye" was admirable attempt to update the Fleming milieu for the end of the Cold War, but left the character himself as yet without an 'updated' definition.

The decision to make a 21st Century version of Fleming's first Bond novel - and, beyond the update, to remain true to the novel, sans comic patter, sans sci-fi techno-schtick, sans major rewrite of the basic plot - promised to present Bond fans of all ages with a direct challenge. Do we want the hard-boiled spy Fleming first envisioned - patterned after Chandler's Philip Marlowe and W. Somerset Maughm's Ashenden ("or: The British Agent")? Or would we really rather have the suave stand-up comedian and Playboy magazine contributor introduced by Broccoli, Maibaum, Young, and company, in the second Connery film, "From Russia With Love"?

Well, the votes are still being tallied on that.

As someone who came to Bond reading "Goldfinger" at the tender age of twelve (the phrase "round, firm, pointed breasts" has been an inspiration to me since), the closer the films came to the sense of the novels, the happier I was.

So of course, this version of Bond is a joyous surprise for me - my youthful daydreams have been vindicated and at last fully satisfied. There are indeed elements added to the plot, but they are completely congruent with it. There is the use of current technology, but no techno-schtick - i.e., no Q. and no "gadgets". There are the luscious Bond babes (2 - the minimum Bond requirement), but there is no attempt to reduce them to photogenic sex-toys.

Fleming's plot actually requires the film's addition of some heavy action sequences (all done very snappy, with a brutally realistic edge), because the novel is very claustrophobic; the original TV version of the story (1955, with Barry Nelson as 'Jimmy Bond'), only used three indoor sets, because it could - except for the car chase and an attempted bombing at an outdoor café, Fleming's novel took place almost entirely within Bond's hotel suite and the gaming room. The film's opening this novel out to the world is actually quite welcome, and does not affect the central plot or its theme.

The character of Bond presented in this film may disappoint followers of the original films, but the news is, this is FLEMING's Bond - an orphan uncertain of his own identity, a disillusioned romantic trying hard to pretend he's incapable of emotions, a middle class, middle-brow, middle-level management type who just happens to kill people for a living. But he does it extremely well.

The other problem some general viewers may have is the level of violence in the film; having determined to film the novel realistically, director Martin Campbell has decided to ditch the 'B-movie' violence of most of the earlier films, and present us the violence with a hard 'British neo-noir' edge to it. Given the romantic plot twist toward the end, this would be a perfect date movie - except that the violence left some of the female viewers in the theater I attended clearly unsettled. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is part of the gestalt of the film's experience.

Cambell's direction is very good; the writing is crisp; production values are very high; the photography is stunning. Some of the stunt work is truly remarkable, worthy competition for Jackie Chan. The acting is rock-solid and believable for these characters. There is plenty of muscle for the action-film fan, and some real brains for the more general viewer to ponder later.

This film is best viewed with minimal reliance on knowledge of the previous series. In fact, it functions perfectly well as a 'one-off', a film without a series.

But of course, the ending invites a sequel. In Godzilla terms, Connery and Moore having given us the 'showa' Bond, Dalton and Brosnan the "Heisei" Bond, we now have the "Millenium" series James Bond - not a prequel nor even a 'reboot', but, really, an entirely new series about the same character. It is probably too much to hope for, but maybe they can make the sequels just as good as this.

As a genre film it never quite lifts above its genre; so normally I would only give it "nine stars" as a film.

However, as a film within its genre, it is top-of-the-line - so it gets a ten.
8/10
The best Bond? No. The best since the 60s? Yes!
cliveowensucks12 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
523 out of 776 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First off, the negative. Casino Royale is both too long and too short. Like OHMSS, there are moments when the running time feels its length and others where you think something's missing because they suddenly tried to trim the running time by not shooting bits. At times you'd be grateful for a little bit of exposition BEFORE a couple of the big action scenes rather than after. And some of the script has some lines as subtle as a car crash that stink of Paul Haggis' brand of heavy handedness. The big finale is just a bit too much, as if they're afraid not to destroy some big building again because that's what they always do.

Having got that out of the way, none of that matters that much because this is the best Bond since George Lazenby thought he had all the time in the world. It's got a strong plot for once and makes it even stronger by showing us where Bond came from and how he smoothed away some of the rough edges. And the edges are brutally rough here. The killings are nasty and the aftermath has to be dealt with in a way Bonds have never done before.

The real ace in the hand is Craig. He doesn't have Connery's raw star quality, but he's easily the best actor to have played the part. I don't know if the film was shot in sequence but for the only time since OHMSS you get a sense of Bond changing throughout the film as his cockiness becomes confidence and his brutality becomes cold efficiency. He starts off unlikeable but human and gradually picks up the Bond traits we know until he becomes more likable but just a little less human. It's an interesting journey and Craig is up to it. It's not just his delivery, it's also his body language. Even his fighting style changes as he adapts.

Physically he's the most in your face Bond since Lazenby and the action scenes look brutal for once. Even the not very likely free running chase is spectacular but believable because you get the idea that this really is kill or be killed stuff. It's got a real feel of danger to it that hasn't been seen in the series in years. Only the torture scene feels like it's holding back (it's almost as tastefully done as the old TV version) but that's probably fear of the censors.

You'll come out of this one not just thinking that Daniel Craig IS James Bond, but that no-one has ever played him before. Let's all hope EON don't lose their nerve with Bond 22 and bring back the sci-fi stuff and gadgets, because this could be a real new beginning! See it and you'll believe it.
10/10
An all-time Bond favourite
Leofwine_draca23 December 2015
I've long been a fan of the James Bond series but I couldn't help but feel that Pierce Brosnan was the worst Bond: smarmy, ever-knowing, hammy and taking the films as a joke. So I was pretty pleased when I heard that Daniel Craig was to take over the role, and that CASINO ROYALE would attempt to take the Bond series back to its roots. The good news is that CASINO ROYALE is a great Bond film, the best since Timothy Dalton starred in the role, and it ably offers all that fans would expect from the spy genre: tense stand-offs, lots of brutal fight scenes, assassins, globe-trotting hijinks, lengthy chases and double-crossing galore. The film is criss-crossed with intense action scenes and, indeed, things kick off with a hi-stakes chase atop a crane as Craig chases after a "free running" villain.

The action can't get much better than this but it frequently proves to be top-notch, with a great truck chase at an airport and a sinking building in Venice. The hand-to-hand combat is intense and punishing, really pushing the boundaries of the film's 12 certificate. Elsewhere, Bond bags the sexiest Bond girl in a VERY long time – I'm talking about Eva Green, a French newcomer who popped up in KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. Thankfully, she's not swathed in heavy robes here, and she's a real stunner.

I liked the fresh feel that this film bought to the franchise. Much of the suspense comes from a lengthy game of poker; doesn't sound too interesting, you might think, but it's got more tension than a dozen Vin Diesel movies. There's a layer of finesse and style over the whole proceedings and the locations and cars are as breathtaking as ever. Craig puts in a very good, concentrated effort in his first outing as Bond; he recalls Timothy Dalton's dark, angsty turn in the role and blows Pierce Brosnan clean out of the water. Although this is the longest Bond movie ever, it never becomes boring, and even the romance and exposition is interesting for a change. I can't wait for the next film!
9/10
Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel. Got it?
leonardodaftson9 December 2021
I distinctly remember the collective groan from the James Bond fan base back in the mid 2000's when the announcement came that Daniel Craig would replace Pierce Brosnan as the new James Bond. Fans were up in arms because Daniel Craig has blonde hair and baby blue eyes, instead of themore traditional darker traits that were synonymous with the James Bond character. Funny how once 'Casino Royale' was actually released, those skeptics immediately disappeared.

Daniel Craig proves he has the charm, elegance, presence, and confidence that the fans have come to expect from James Bond. He just has a very powerful aura about him from that start that easily establishes him as the next James Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen plays the main antagonist Le Chiffre, who is one of my favorite James Bond villains. The film actually provides insight into his backstory to shed some light on the motivations behind his actions. Le Chiffre is humanized because the audience simply understands his reasons for being "the bad guy", which makes him much more relatable and interesting as a character. This is the antithesis of traditional Bond villains that have a tendency to be very over-the-top and evil just for the sake of being evil.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, who is assigned to supervise James Bond during his mission. Not only is Eva Green stunningly beautiful, she also perfectly portrays the charm, wit, determination, and overall likeability of Vesper. Not much can be said without getting into spoiler territory, but I will say her story arc is one of the highlights of the movie. The women in the James Bond franchise have historically been shallow sex objects, but Vesper's character contains significantly depth than female characters in prior films.

The action sequences are perfectly placed throughout the film and choreographed beautifully. However, some of the most suspenseful scenes in the film aren't even the scenes with action. The high stakes poker game itself unfolds in a way that creates enormous suspense and excitement. These scenes at the card table are so perfectly crafted, the audience is left with even greater anticipation and excitement than any action scene in the film.

Every part of 'Casino Royale' is extraordinarily well-written. The characters are interesting, relatable, and have depth. The plot is stimulating and compelling. The movie is beautifully shot. There is so much attention to detail. There are so many small moments scattered throughout the film that add massive amounts of depth to the story. There are many elements of cinematography utilized, like lighting/colors/camera angles, that perfectly complement the storytelling aspect of the film.

'Casino Royale' is not just a good James Bond film, it's a good film altogether. It's a must-watch film for anyone, whether or not you're a fan of the James Bond franchise.
8/10
"Do I look like I give a damn?"
Nazi_Fighter_David5 January 2009
Anyone who has followed the James Bond series over the last four decades knows that the new Bond has changed... In "Casino Royale," 007 do not identify himself with the classic words, "Bond. James Bond," and instead of playing Chemin-de-Fer or Craps, he plays Poker and he doesn't care whether his vodka martinis are shaken or stirred nor he drinks a Smirnoff vodka, or a five-star Hennessey, or a Dom Pérignon'52... He never pauses to take a finger of Caviar… He never enjoys a good cigar and is less preoccupied with matters of sex…

But he is a more trained Bond, a cold-hearted killer improvising, modifying, and overcoming, uttering to M in one decisive moment his most significant line, "So you want me to be half monk, half hit-man!"

In taking the part, Daniel Craig completely inhabited the character of the super agent 007… There is something empathetic about him and something human…He so lets you in behind his blue eyes and into his emotional life…

His opponent is the villain banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who tries to get rich in supplying funds for terrorists… To continue doing so, Le Chiffre wants to win back his losses in a no-limit showdown Poker game with $115,000,000 in chips at Casino Royale in Montenegro…

Ivana Milicevic plays Le Chiffre's Bosnian bodyguard who nearly eliminates our hero… Valenka is harmful but not pure evil as her boss…

Simon Abkarian is the middleman Alex Dimitrios involved with Le Chiffre, who knew where to put his hands on weapons and people who could use them… He works with anyone who has money…

The Italian actress Caterina Murino (Solange) reveals her sexy side as the frustrated woman so upset in her marriage…

Jeffrey Wright plays the undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter 'bleeding chips at the poker tournament;' and Giancarlo Giannini plays the 'contact' Mathis…

Eva Green is Bond's love interest Vesper Lynd… Green and Craig have electric chemistry on screen together… Vesper's character seems ambiguous, impudent and complicated… One night—slumped in the shower fully clothed, radiating inner beauty—her quiet look is capable to melt Bond's cold heart and free his doubtful mind… In another, she disconcerts him with her pretty 'Algerian love knot.'

"Casino Royale" lacks the fundamental technology exhibition which plays an important part in any Bond films... The traditional "James Bond Gun Barrel Sequence" and the "James Bond Theme" disappeared… The only thin bit of continuity is Judi Dench's fifth return as the cool, scheming chief Lady M…

Directed by Martin Campbell, the movie has it all: spectacular locations from Prague, London, Miami and Nassau— and amazing actions involving the superb Aston Martin DB5 coupe in a high-speed mountain chase; a rush to stop a fuel tanker at Miami Airport; a combat with an Ugandan terrorist; a pursue in a four-wheel bulldozer; a breathless foot chase across highest cranes; and an unexpected climax in one of the buildings on the canals of Venice
9/10
Daniel Craig you are here to stay!
nikhilvarma8912 November 2006
This is among the best bond movies! You have to see it.

After all the controversy and comments on Daniel Craig's potential as an actor and doubts over him playing Bond...i'd say forget it and be enthralled by the new BOND! He's here to stay.

He has that natural feeling about him when you see him on the screen as Bond, that attitude, style, confidence matched only by Sean COnnery. The movie as a whole is extremely entertaining and exciting.The acting is awesome Eva Green actually does a great job and has really improved her acting from the last time i saw her (in kingdom of heaven), but then this is a totally different movie.

There's a lot of action mixed with great story which i am sure will please the true Bond fan.

Please go and watch this because you will regret if you don't, forget the past this is the New Bond.

9/10
10/10
007
MR_Heraclius13 February 2020
Daniel Craig's debut as 007 which he knocked out of the park. A very grounded, smart, realistic James Bond film. Casino Royale is debatably for most fans the best Bond film and I can honestly view this film as a movie of its own to be honest. Daniel Craig is the best bond since Sean Connery.
70 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An impressively dark, engaging and exciting entry in the Bond series – just what it needed after Die Another Day
bob the moo11 December 2006
Having just achieved his 00 status, James Bond is assigned to uncover a plot by tracking a bomber for hire. The mission could not go worse as Bond kills the man in an embassy in front of CCTV cameras. Removed from the mission by M, Bond nevertheless follows the only lead he has to Miami where he finds himself working round the edges of a plot by criminal Le Chiffre to invest his clients money in the stock market just before an engineered event should send shares in a direction favourable for him.

After the poor CGI and overblown (if fun) affair that was Die Another Day, the series was at risk of just throwing more and more money at the screen in an attempt to exaggerate and increase the Bond formula to keep fans happy. And, in fairness it seems financially to be working for them but this is not to say that the drastically scaled back feel of Casino Royale is not a welcome change of direction for the series, because for me it most certainly was. Opening with a gritty, short and violent pre-credit sequence, the film moves through a cool title sequence with a typically Bondian (if only so-so) theme song. The film then immediately marks itself out as a step away from the previous film by launching on a great action sequence that is as overblown as the series requires but yet is all the better for seeming real – no ropy Die Another Day CGI here. Casting free-runner Foucan was a great move and this sequence was the high for me. After this the film develops nicely with a solid plot that engaged me easily enough, with interesting characters along the way.

Of course this isn't to say that the series has suddenly put out an introspective character piece, because the world of Bond is all still here. So we have superhuman stunts, gadgets (albeit a practical self-defibrillator as opposed to a mini-helicopter) and the usual types of characters going the way we expect. Those expecting this self-styled "reboot" to provide a depth and emotion that isn't there will be disappointed but regardless this does the Bond formula well – fans will enjoy it and those that were turned off by Die Another Day will find it a welcome return to darker territory. With all the fanboys tired from bemoaning Craig, it is nice to actually see for ourselves what he can do and mostly he is very good. He convinces as a heartless killer and has the presence that suggests that he could do ruthless damage if he had to. I was a bit put off by how regularly he pouts but generally he brings a gravitas to the character that it benefits from. Green is a pretty good Bond girl and brings much, much more to the role than Berry did in the last film. Mikkelsen is a good foil for Bond and is given more interest by his lack of stature (he is essentially facing his last role of the dice in several ways). Dench is as solid as ever while Wright makes a shrewd move in a small character that offers more of the same for a few years to come.

Overall then this is not the brilliant, flawless film that many have claimed, but I completely understand why it has been greeted with such praise. Sat beside Die Another Day, it is a wonderfully dark and brooding Bond with great action replacing some of the CGI and gadget excesses of recent times. Those upset at his blue eyes are best left fuming on the net, because Craig is a great Bond – capable of being dark with the violence and offering the potential for more if the material comes to meet him. A refreshing film with the bond formula in place but with a dark and comparatively restrained tone that makes it realistic enough to get into while still existing in the spy fantasy world.
8/10
A Great Actor As Bond
giorgiosurbani7 January 2007
What a difference a great actor makes. Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond and parting from that point everything in it is enjoyable, frightening, thrilling just because we're with him. He conquered us from the word go. The initial chase is one of the best in film history and as soon as we get to know this new incarnation of the iconic Ian Fleming character, we're hooked. He's virile but there is room for ambiguity. He's elegant but as, the sensational Eva Green, points out is more acquired than inherited. More working class than even Sean Connery and that works wonders for Mr Bond. The script is more compact and organic. The locations are breathtaking and what else I can say? The series have been reinvigorated, rejuvenated and in one single stroke have secured that this franchise will live forever. A note to Barbara Broccoli, the producer, your father would be so proud. Congratulations!
313 out of 466 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Royale without cheese.
CuriosityKilledShawn18 November 2006
Casino Royale is a major step-up from the flamboyant Die Another Day. Pierce Brosnan has been replaced by a young-ish Daniel Craig, there is no Q, no campy gadgets, no silly naked women silhouettes in the opening credits, no world-dominating super-colossus villains, no Miss Funnyfanny (or whatever), and no silly one-liners after killing bad guys. Basically everything that can date Bond film very quickly is gone. I never expected international espionage to look the way it has in past few Bond outings and I'm glad someone had the balls to go back to the hard-edged nature of the series, last seen in Licence to Kill.

The longest Bond movie so far, at 145 minutes, but it breezes by even though it reigns in on the normally excessive action scenes and depicts spying a more 'mundane' and 'realistic' manner (or at least as true as the series has been so far). But the one-thing that bugs me about action movies, particularly the Bond franchise, is that they are, most of the time, childish male fantasies with an indestructible hero who has fun shooting up the place and beds beautiful women. I would like something new for a change but Casino Royale does have Bond get hurt and go through more pain than he has previously.

Daniel Craig got a lot of hassle over his casting as Bond but not only does he have his youth as an advantage (he's the first 30-something to be cast in the role since Lazenby), he's also pretty damn trim, has the intensity Brosnan lacked and is surprisingly loose in a role that usually requires actors to be stiff and unemotional. It's also good to a fresh face in the role and who cares if he is blonde? Or the shortest actor to play him so far? I would have preferred that composer David Arnold went too. They didn't seem to be holding back on the amount of regular production team members who got axed. Even Vic Armstrong didn't return. I've never liked Arnold's work on the movies and I hate to think of it as something that's now exclusively HIS baby.

Unfortunately, as good as this fresh start to the franchise was, all of the goodwill that director Martin Campbell earned was completely undone by the follow-up Quantum of Solace, which is not only the worst Bond film so far, but one of the worst action films, and one of the worst films overall, that I have ever seen.

If Craig and Co. ever get around to making another, they've got a LOT to make up for.
10/10
Welcome back...
Shanus11 November 2006
There is only one movie franchise that has twisted, turned and reinvented itself on so many occasions...

007 has unfortunately dwindled more than it has bedazzled over the last decades but I am relieved to see that Martin Campbell has put the edge back into the Bond series.

The originally unpopular Craig grinds through this action packed feature with ease and in my opinion proves all of his doubters (including me) very very wrong..

At last we have another true Bond.. Sharp, sophisticated and as tough as nails... And perhaps correctly more shaken than stirred.

Welcome back 007... Welcome back.
702 out of 1,072 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond isn't just back, he's at the top of his game
Murph McManus9 November 2006
James Bond is back and he is alive and well. Any questions about Daniel Craig's worthiness are thrown out almost immediately as we are handed a film filled to the brim with exquisite action and explosive emotion. I squirmed in my seat with delight as I have not done since I was a child. What "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, "Casino Royale" does, and more, for Bond. For a while it seemed that he might not be able to well exist outside the confines of the cold war, but here we are given an entirely modern Bond with enough nods to the original that we can't be too upset. Maybe it's because this is the last novel yet to be filmed in the traditional Bond manner and it is Ian Fleming who has stolen our hearts not this incarnation of the super spy. However I like to think that someone actually just got their act together and concentrated on the film itself as opposed to who they could get the most product placement money out of. Congratulations. James Bond will live on for at least one more generation, and maybe forever. Great set pieces and one of the best chase sequences not involving cars ever put on screen, blended with beautiful locations and even more lovely women add up to the perfect cocktail with the twisting story line acting as the lemon peel in the martini, holding it all together. Many will come out saying that this is the best Bond film ever and I can not rightly say they are wrong at this point. Only time will tell that tale. However every fan can be assured that this ranks amongst the very upper crust of Bond movies, and Craig is no Lazenby. He lends a harsh wit and a thuggish charm to the character and by the end he's no longer the new guy, he is Bond, James Bond. A masterpiece of popular film-making and the movie we have been waiting for all year. See it early and often as it is sure not to diminish upon reviewing.
9/10
blonde bond bombshell
the_mad-scientist14 November 2006
Well certain people thought Daniel Craig could not pull it off, but he has and with style and a cold steel edge, not seen since Sean Connery.

This is proper action hero stuff, but he actually looks like if he wanted to he could kill you.

With an opening sequence that will stop you from blinking for 20 minutes.

The film is class, from the cinematography, to the three dimensional villains, and Bond's rapid learning curve.

Like Dr No, you see a killer, just he is on our side.

Don't read reviews, just go and see it, and tell your friends what you thought, you won't be disappointed.
9/10
My fav Bond in one of my fav Bond movie and that too with an amazing parkour chase sequence.
Fella_shibby16 May 2021
I first saw this in 2006 with my family in a theatre.

Revisited it recently on a dvd which I own.

This is the twenty-first in the Bond series and the first film to star Daniel Craig as James Bond and my first Bond film seen in a theatre.

Basically it is a reboot and here we get to see an MI6 operative promoted to 00 agent status by assassinating two targets.

So to achieve a licence to kill, he has to kill minimum two targets.

In this one Bond pursues a bomb-maker which leads him to a corrupt official Alex Dimitrios in the Bahamas.

Bond later uncovers the plot of the destruction of Skyfleet's prototype airliner by a private banker to terrorists known as Le Chiffre.

This film has one of the best parkour chase sequence.

It has old skool action n thankfully there is no reliance on gadgets n cgi.

One of the best part is that we get to see a Bond who is inexperienced, vulnerable n his transition to a cold blooded killer is very well done. Thank God, ther is no cheeky humor.

Daniel Craig in this movie is in very good shape n at times his character is believable, which can run, sprint, endure both torture n poison and sometimes who gives a damn whether its shaken or stirred, unlike his predecessors.

This time Bond faces Le Chiffre n his henchmen Valenka, Alex Dimitrios, Kratt, Carlos Nikolic and one of the world's best free runner Mollaka Danso, a freelance terrorist working for Chiffre n Dimitrios.

Bond also faces the machete yielding terrorist Steven Obanno n his bodyguard.

Bond pursues Mr. White n faces his henchmen, the most famous being Adolph Gettler, the man with a unique glasses who gets shot in the eye.

I miss those olden Bond villain's powerful henchmen.

This time Bond gets to cool off with Caterina Murino n Eva Green.

The film ends at a breathtaking beautiful location of Lake Como, the most beautiful lake in the world for its microclimate and environment with prestigious villas and villages.

It also ends with the iconic dialogue.
8/10
Reboot with a bang
SnoopyStyle28 November 2013
Daniel Craig stars in this reboot to the Bond franchise. The prologue sets the darker and grittier mood right away. It's black and white, and it's hard violence. Just in case you didn't get the message. The story goes pretty quickly to Daniel Craig jumping on giant cranes, in a crazy parkour chase. This is not your daddy's Bond.

This Bond starts off as a brash guy who just got his double o designation. He's physical. The action is more visceral, not as much cartoon violence. Bond as a physical specimen is epitomized by the bikini shot. It's not a Bond girl that gets the big bikini reveal. It's Bond.

The story does have a slowdown after the crane to pick up all the pieces of the story. Once it gets going again, and this time he doesn't stop. But it's not simply more action that's the difference from Pierce Brosnan. It's the rejection of all that is Bond cheese. The smirky tone, and the perfunctory womanizing are all gone.

Mads Mikkelsen provides a good menacing foil. And Eva Green provides the proper love interest. However she comes in an hour into the movie and would be better to have more screen time. At least, she and Bond have good verbal exchanges with the time they have, and the movie really takes off. Bond is monogamous. Who knew?
8/10
Impressive
kuzaceto-kaan17 April 2021
As good upon second watch as the first.

Lots of action, double crosses, beautiful scenery and a super thin babe. What else can we want?
27 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No No Seven
JoeytheBrit2 July 2007
The Bond franchise seems have taken a curious decision here, going back to the roots of the Bond legend and therefore giving us a Bond movie that isn't really a Bond movie at all, but rather a pre-Bond movie. Daniel Craig's Bond is something of an arrogant hothead, more smug than suave, who finds himself in the kind of predicaments that Connery et al never would. I can't imagine Sean having his goolies whacked while strapped naked to a seatless chair somehow. Definitely a tougher, more cynical Bond, the fact that he isn't the finished article shouldn't be held against Craig, who does reasonably well (although using an actor with the rugged features of Craig in a story going back to roots of a character previously portrayed by the suave likes of Connery, Moore and Brosnan seems a bizarre casting choice and just made it that more difficult to believe I was watching a Bond flick).

The ending possibly bodes well for future instalments (the introduction of the Bond theme only after Craig has uttered Bond's immortal intro line was one of the few high points). Let's hope so - because all through this all I could think about was how much I missed the old Bonds.
8/10
One of the best Bond movies in years
hill10788 November 2006
I saw this at a cast and crew screening in London last weekend: I'm not a huge Bond fan, but I do enjoy them on a purely popcorn level and this was definitely one of the best in recent memory. The tone is much edgier and nastier than the Brosnan movies, harking back more to Dr. No or For Your Eyes Only. The action sequences are brilliantly shot and edited for maximum impact and are some of the best out of any Bond movie. Martin Campbell, who also made 'Goldeneye', was an excellent choice and, for me, is one of the best Bond directors. What gives this the lead over recent Bonds is the more realistic feel: the exotic locales, fast cars, spectacular action, beautiful women and many other Bond hallmarks are all here but gone is the campy tone that marred, say, Die Another Day. Yes, the whole franchise is based on an entirely ridiculous and cartoonish notion but the more serious and harder-edged tone works really well here. In this context, Daniel Craig gives an excellent performance as Bond. I'll be the first to admit that I raised an eyebrow when I heard he was cast but he really makes it his own. It's hard to say whether he's better than any of the other Bonds: Connery and Brosnan felt right for the style of Bond movies they were in. Here, as suits the overall tone of the film, Bond is much more of a sadist, a cold-hearted killer with very little sense of empathy and Craig, with his piercing eyes, suits the role very well. He's charming and funny when required and totally convincing in the action sequences. The violence is less cartoon-like and flippant, too, with every punch, kick and shooting looking like they really hurt. Also, the story is just much more engaging than many a Bond film; the script's not going to win awards but it's consistently inventive and intriguing. Whilst the film has enough of it's fair share of action, the emphasis is equally on character and storyline and less on gadgets and sheer implausibility. When there isn't a huge action sequence happening, you don't miss it: the film's longest set-piece, the poker game at the Casino Royale, is as (or not more) gripping and entertaining than any of the chases and shoot-outs. The only minor gripes that I have are a slightly too long running time: the film drags a wee bit towards the end and, although it helps the tone of the film, we don't hear enough of the Bond theme tune! However, great directing and performances from everyone involved, along with Phil Meheux's excellent cinematography, Peter Lamont's as ever superb production design and all the other top-notch craft and technical departments make 'Casino Royale' a classy and very enjoyable night out at the movies.
10/10
For The First Time...
philip-988 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
994 out of 1,403 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now look, I'm a hard-core James Bond fan. Some might say a purist.I make no apologies for believing that Timothy Dalton is the closest thing we've seen to IAN FLEMING's James Bond.

Last night I saw Casino Royale.

This is, for the first time, the truest interpretation of the character we have ever seen.

This film is amazing. Totally mind-blowing. From the black and white pre-titles, to arguably the best titles sequence ever. From the African free-running chase to the beautiful interiors of London. From Judi Dench's harassed M, to the super cool Le Chiffre. From the stone-cold government killer, to the heart broken lover.

Style and sophistication are in abundance.

And I love it.

Lancelot Narayan DVD Producer The Lip Sync Group
7/10
Excellent prequel to the series
lefrelonvert10 November 2006
Though it doesn't care too much about the series' continuity (it's supposed to be Bond's first mission as a 00 agent, but it takes place after the Cold war and Judi Dench is already M), "Casino Royale" is a great re-creation of the series. Cool action, great thrills and a more humane Bond more than make up for the purported lack of gadgets. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a rough secret who only gradually acquires the class and cold demeanor we all know and love. He makes mistakes in the course of his mission, but that makes him even more of a hero. Although I found it hard at first to cope with Craig's looks, he is more than suitable as the character. Bond is portrayed as a man with flaws and weaknesses, which makes him look even stronger. The story is not your usual Bond plot and relies more on classical thrills than technology, though the action is extremely hard-boiled. Kudos to the creepy Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd for creating remarkably believable characters. A definite must-see for Bond fans : it should reconcile at last Ian Fleming aficionados and fans of the film series !
321 out of 581 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A decent film but this is not Bond
oshram-326 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
37 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is based on, by far, the most boring of Fleming's novels; though it serves as the introduction to Bond the character, in effect our hero does little but sit around smoking and playing cards. This movie remains painstakingly true to the book, for the most part, which is both a good and a bad thing in the long run. But Royale isn't trying to be a Bond film; in fact, it tries so hard to be an anti-Bond film that it hurts. The object behind this film, much like with Batman Begins, is to show you where the hero came from and who he was before he became so mythic.

At least in BB, Bruce Wayne gets to be Batman. Here, such is not the case. Daniel Craig plays a real hard-ass killer, one who drinks, plays cards, and is both quick-witted and fast on his feet. He's a pretty cool guy – but make no mistake, he is not James Bond. Bond, even going back to Connery, is supposed to have a touch of the larger than life about him (though maybe not so much as Roger Moore gave him), and here, the filmmakers are strenuously determined that, outside of the action sequences, that not be so. Bond, as well as being a ruthless agent, is supposed to be a little suave, a little dashing (again, even going back to Connery); but Craig has (or was directed to have) none of that charm. He comes off as an intelligent, intuitive assassin, but not the super-spy that, frankly, most fans of the Bond series want to see.

It doesn't help that he has no real villains to fight against. Le Chiffre (Mad Mikkelsen) is an international banker who launders black market funds, which isn't the same as a Chinese mastermind taking over an island in the Bahamas or a former Russian general stealing a laser satellite. Some people complained that these elaborate villains and schemes were what weakened the franchise, but look at an excellent barometer of what it is to be Bond, the Austin Powers movies. Mike Myers understands better than the Broccoli estate that what helps to make Bond Bond is pitting him against a worthy adversary. Granted, Le Chiffre is the villain in the novel as well, and in staying faithful to the book, they didn't have much choice but to use him. But even in the novel, when Bond beats Le Chiffre at baccarat (here dumbed down to poker), there is a sharp sense of relief and triumph. Here, when Bond wins, it's like a foregone conclusion, and the moment carries no impact at all.

When Bond is running around trying to catch or kill someone, Royale is great. The extended pre-credits action sequence is really well done, but the problem is, it's pretty much the entire action for the whole movie. Again, this is merely following the book, but the filmmakers failed to realize that what passed for exotic in 1954 doesn't any more. Just having a sequence set in the Bahamas in the 1950s was exciting (still true of Dr. No in the early 60s). But with the shrunken world of the 21st century, we're not impressed with Carribbean locations or Montenegro's casinos. We've seen this all before.

Royale is in and of itself an okay film. It's too long, and the twists and turns at the end are rather obvious (and they take waaaaaay too long to get to). The first hour and a half move along reasonably well, but the last 45 minutes drag. Craig is engaging enough as the lead, gruffer than Bond should be but ultimately he's an acceptable spy. The real problem with the film (aside from length) is the intent; the filmmakers try far too hard to remake Bond for a new century, when really, there was nothing wrong with the old Bond. By going back to the beginning of the saga, they were consciously trying to erase 40 years of cinematic history; a tall (and unwanted) order, and frankly, one that this movie is not up to. It's a little like the recent King Arthur movie with Clive Owen – not a bad movie at all, but not a particularly good representation of that iconic character. Sadly, since this film is doing well (the theater was the most crowded I have seen since Star Wars last summer), we'll be stuck not only with this actor but this version of Bond for the next few years. Here's hoping the next fella gets it right.
Don't believe the hype. The worst Bond film of all time!
jellyneckr17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
132 out of 275 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was going to wait until a second viewing of CASINO ROYALE before writing a comment for it since my opinion on a film occasionally does change the second time around, but I am absolutely stunned at the positive rating of the picture so I feel I must get my two cents out while my grips are fresh in my mind. Since there are so many of them, the following will read more as a complaint this than a coherent review, which is appropriate since coherency is definitely not something that CASINO ROYAL has, surprising given the ridiculous two and a half hour running time. Poorly adapted by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (groan) Paul Haggis, is the perfect example of one too many cooks in the kitchen. There are two screenplays fighting for screen time here, and the two mesh horribly. The action aspect, which I am guessing is Purvis and Wade's screenplay, is fine. The ideas behind the action scenes are incredible. The execution-not so much. Then there's the so-called character development and horrid romantic sub-plot that feel like they were tacked right after shooting began. No doubt that was the work of Haggis' trite, pain-inducing screenplay, overwrought with some of the corniest dialogue of all time delivered by the seemingly medicated Daniel Craig as James Bond. Neither charming nor slick, Craig plays Bond as if he doesn't care. There is no coolness factor to Bond here, especially when the film turns into THE NOTEBOOK in the last act. Yes, this is not the Bond we all know and love. This is a sensitive, weak, and all around boring Bond. The exact type that should not be in an action movie. To make matters worse, there is no chemistry between Craig and leading lady Eva Green. In fact, their romance seems downright creepy. Green was 25-years-old when 'ROYALE' was shot, Craig was 38 and looking over 40. I could buy them as father and daughter, but as a supposed couple, it was just a major turn off.

Perhaps the biggest cinematic crime CASINO ROYALE makes is throwing the continuity of the series out the window. Granted the Bond series has never been about continuity, but what's done in 'ROYALE' is a giant slap in the face to anyone who has been following the franchise for even the past few installments. A supposed prequel to the series, the story takes place in 2006. With a budget of over $150 million, the filmmakers couldn't have set in another decade? It's just one of the many examples in CASINO ROYALE that shows film-making at its laziest. Don't believe the hype. This is the worst Bond picture of all time. I never thought I would say this, but Bond is dead. Worst of the year. 0/10
10/10
written from the future (2015)
A_Different_Drummer21 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The problem with writing from the future (9 years after this film was released) is that the reviewer knows more than he should. For that I apologize.

Apologies aside, I am giving this film a "10" (CITIZEN KANE CLASS) because:

* it is the best and most artfully crafted reboot in modern film history. It took all expectations and blew them away. (Unlike for example the wretched Spiderman reboot which, we found out, was done for financial reasons to keep an option clause alive.)

* the first 50 minutes is perhaps one of the most action-packed segments in film history as well. The intent was to position Craig's re-imagining of Bond as similar to a bloodhound -- once on the scent, he never lets up. From the opening scene with Free-jumping (of the millions who saw this, most did not realize what they were seeing) to the airport explosion, it is gripping and brilliant. It also sets up the relationship for the later film themed around Judi Dench, essentially killing two birds with one stone. Brilliant.

* the second part of the film involves a transition which succeeds but only by the skin of its celluloid teeth. The idea from the script meetings was, having established JB as a cold-hearted bastard, give him a "loss" to set up the next film that makes it "personal". Was this too much too soon? Critics felt the reboot too ambitious, but it was entertaining throughout.

* Eva Green's looks have never been used to better advantage, nor is it likely they ever will again. Sin City 2 notwithstanding.

* the trope with the cardiac paddles is one of the most memorable in film history and verily defines the phrase "man enough to jog home from his own vasectomy." Many young men who saw this in a theatre with dates felt very inadequate that night.

Bottom line, a "10" score is usually reserved for a film which is perfect, memorable, and historical. This qualifies. Whatever flaws exist in this reboot (and there are several) are found entirely in the sequels. This first entry set the bar.
6/10
It wasn't completely awful, but it stank
siderite17 December 2006
I can't believe how many positive reviews came for this movie. Its only clear qualities are that the film is more on the realist side, rather than weird gadget and eccentric villains, and that they reverted to the good old Aston Martin... but that's it. Craig is a good Bond, but he has nothing from the appeal of Sean Connery or the humour of Roger Moore. But even so, I have nothing against the man. The movie, though, sucked badly! The dialogues are inept, the plot is jerky and ambiguous and the adrenaline inducing effects and action scenes are not that good.

All I can say is that we find ourselves in a trend of prequels, and as a prequel, this wasn't particularly good. Taking into account the disastrous recent movies from the Bond series, though, it is a definite improvement.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Neither shaken nor stirred
tieman6414 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"The film returns to "realism" and a more credible plot, with less fantasy and gratuitous humour." – The Guardian (on "The Living Daylights" – the first Bond movie to star Timothy Dalton)

Whenever the Bond franchise is reset and a new actor is brought in, the Bond publicity machine claims that this new entry will "go in new directions", "be different", "edgier", "more violent", "more realistic" etc. And every time audiences are conned, if only for a couple "new" installments, until they realise that these films don't actually change, they just absorb whatever film-making trends are currently in vogue.

Bond was always a disposable product. With no character history and a personality distilled to a series of tics, he epitomises cinema as throwaway commodity. The most commercially successful movie hero and franchise in history, the Bond films are not only rife with "product placements", but they themselves function as a kind of highly sophisticated advertisement for the James Bond brand. They must simultaneously invoke tradition and the promise of something new, yet as that newness is always bound to tradition, you never actually get anything new, just variations of the same old thing, the franchise continually destroying its past even as it persistently resurrects it. Bond is about bondage in more ways than one.

Bond was always about unrealistic fantasies of Western power, the films (including "Casino Royale") all depicting beautiful people behaving violently in a cold and "rational" fashion whilst extravagantly consuming the best materials society can provide in the form of expensive yachts, cars, food and hotels. Little thought is ever given to emotional connection, spirituality or non-dominating forms of conflict resolution, the dominant social paradigm is always vindicated and reasserted, Bond always wins (often through highly unethical means), all the women he seeks are conquered, the "traitorous woman" is always killed and a Victorian mentality of society being strictly hierarchical, mechanistic and controlled from the top by an inherited nobility, is always served up.

And of course the narrative structures of all the Bond movies are the same: we have the titillative pre-story action sequence, the revelation of the mission, the journey to the exotic location, the meeting with the first woman, the introduction of the sub villain, the mid point action sequences, the introduction of the second woman, the capture of Bond by the central villain, the escape of Bond and the climactic action sequence, often in which the bad guy is killed. Added to this mix is the usual sprinkling of black tie functions, high stakes gambles, card games, exotic locations, gun-play, dangerous car chases etc.

And as most "action movies" are reliant on the technology and conventions of the time in which they were made, and as the "pace" of these films is constantly increasing, most Bond films have a shelf life of about 3 years, each film looking dated by the time the other arrives.

Of course most action movies adhere to this formula (the Indiana Jones flicks follow it to a tee) - this is because our cultural narrative structure is shaped strongly around the pattern of the male sexual experience (setup, building tension, climax, then resolution) - but the Bond movies have been religiously following their own template and replicating whole sequences for almost six decades. This is why EON Productions, the company which produces the Bond movies, typically hires hack directors and doesn't let auteurs go near the series: no one is allowed to fiddle with the Bond ingredients. No one. ("Quantum of Solace" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" are, thus far, the closest the series has come to an auteur; unsurprisingly, the masses hated both)

Midway in this film a character asks Bond if he'd like his drink "Shaken or stirred?" Bond replies "Do I look like I give a damn?" as though he's suddenly treading brave new narrative terrain. In reality, such little "self-aware gimmicks" (which are scattered throughout "Casino Royale") are no more "edgy" than George Lazenby breaking the third wall and saying "this never happened to the other fellow". Once you realise these movies have never been shaken, there becomes nothing in them to really cause a stir.

6/10 – A clichéd film with an overlong final act and an underused Eva Green. The film has several action sequences, all derivative. The "free running" sequences are low rent versions of "Ong Bak" and "District 13", Bond's bathroom brawl recalls "True Lies", the airport chase seems like a deleted scene from the original "Die Hard" trilogy, whilst the "African Base standoff" at the start of the film is identical to the "Russian Base standoff" at the start of "Goldeneye" (same director, too). Incidentally, the director of this film, Martin Campbell, "rebooted" Bond in the early 90s with "Goldeneye", just as director Guy Hamilton twice "rebooted" Bond in the 60s and 70s.

Worth one viewing.
6/10
Bond Rating is Down
kenjha2 July 2007
Craig seems to be the wrong choice to take over the role of 007. He is serious and mean-spirited instead of suave and witty, as we have come to expect of Bond. Unlike other Bonds, the pre-credits sequence is dull. While some of the action scenes are well executed, the excitement is not sustained because the plot is choppy and convoluted. Bond is newly minted as 007 in this one but the film takes place in 2006, totally oblivious to all the previous Bond films. There is no chemistry between Craig and Green and their romance becomes too sappy. Bond films are supposed to be silly and fun, laced with babes, gadgets, and double-entendres. This one take itself too seriously and goes on far too long.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
This is NOT James Bond (As We Know Him Through The Years)
ccthemovieman-129 April 2007
Hey, I'm sorry but I've watched all James Bond movies since the inception of the character first on screen in 1962 in "Dr. No." I have seen all the people who played Bond. Almost all of the time it was either Sean Connery, Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan. They all were suave, cool guys who might have been tough underneath but were classy and right at home in a tuxedo, and had a great sense of humor.

This new guy, Daniel Craig, looks like a thug and acts like one. He's about as classy as your average rugby player. Give me a break!

Even more alarming, the stuff that made the James Bond movies different than the rest of the spy-action movies over the years were (1) the aforementioned classy hero; (2) a lot of fun gadgets, explained by "Q;" (3) the humor, including all the corny sexual innuendos; (4) a classy boss in 'M'; here we have Judi Dench as an irritable, foul-mouthed old bag; and (5) the opening credits with the silhouetted naked women. None of that is in here.

In other words, this is just another wild, action film with good guys and bad guys. This isn't the Bond we have all known for over four decades. Well, I guess all good things come to an end, as they say.
1/10
Not your father's James Bond
villard23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
154 out of 317 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, this is the 21st century. So, maybe it's time for even the Bond genre to get a tune-up for new generation audiences. At least that's what the producers thought.

But the New Bond is as disappointing as New Coke. Nothing beats the original.

For starters, the producers seemed to make sure to keep everything out of the screenplay for "Casino Royale" that made the Bond series unique, exciting, engaging and fun.

The so-called "Bond formula" balanced sadism with sensuality, and ironic humor. Sadly missing from this film too are the other Bond staples: gadgets, buxom blonds, and wonderful little quips and double entendres. This all gave the Bond series a comic book adventure cadence and buoyancy. It didn't take itself too seriously.

But "Casino Royale" jettisons all this and just keeps slogging along with relentless action scenes, brutality, banality and not much else. Yes, the action scenes are astutely choreographed, filmed and edited. But they are needed to shore up a saggy, dragged-out and somewhat convoluted plot.

The opening immediately warns you that this is not "classic" Bond. It sets the film's heavy tone. Bond brutally assassinates two criminals, one by drowning in a lavatory sink, in black-and-white film noir, no less. By contrast in the "Goldfinger" (1964) prequel, Bond blows up a narcotics operation, changes into a tux, romances a cabaret dancer, and easily dispenses with an assassin, all the before the opening credits.

The opening credits of "Casino Royale" alone are another warning. There is not one stylized silhouette of a female model, which was the glamour signature in almost all Bond films. Instead, we just have silhouettes of guy shooting each other and bleeding in Technicolor across the screen. Yuck!

What's horribly pretentious is that the whole film tries to chronicle the apprentice Bond's transition into a 007 assassin. But it's as contrived and unconvincing as Anakin Skywalker's metamorphosis into Darth Vader. And, in the end it's even sappier than the brief marriage of George Lanzenby's Bond to Dianna Rigg in the 1969 "on Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Frankly, I'm not Bond's psychologist and so I really don't care to delve into life's little traumas that shaped 007. I'm content with accepting that he just grew up that way.

Daniel Craig is terribly miscast as Bond. He's a blue collar Bond. He looks self-conscious in a tuxedo. He's too hard chiseled in appearance for the debonair Bond as invented by Ian Flemming.

Craig could have just as easily been cast as one of the villains in the film. His strident, driven demeanor reminds me a little bit of Donovan Grant, the SPECTRE assassin played by Robert Shaw in the 1963 "From Russia with Love." Craig is humorless, and too much on the edge for my tastes. Actually, his squinty eyes, big upper torso, and gait reminds me a little of Popeye the Sailor.

Like the Timothy Dalton Bond, he has no sense of playfulness either. His romantic side seems forced in the film's few dull and gratuitous lovemaking scenes. And, the women cast to play opposite him in this film can barely gain admission into the sorority of Bond babes.

Equally lackluster is Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of high-roller Le Chiffre. He doesn't fit into the shoes of previous legendary bond villains such as Goldfinger, Largo, and Blofeld. Frankly, Mikkelsen is just plain creepy, but not scary. As the top bad guy he seems to be on Valium most of the time.

The silly torture scene at the end is also out of character for him. Mikkelsen doesn't have any of the bully, bluster and swagger of the classic Bond villains. Please give me just one script line like Goldfinger's: "I expect you to die Mr. Bond!" Ho hum.

All of this makes for just another forgetful spy movie with lots of fists and blood and guts, nothing more. It's wrapped itself in the James Bond mystique – which will guarantee a good box office – but pays no homage to the genre.

It's too bad the creators felt they hand to change such a celebrated formula that has sustained the popularity of Bond series for nearly four decades.
5/10
Bond is back! Better luck next time.
BA_Harrison12 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the lamentable Die Another Day, a rethink for the Bond franchise was definitely in order. The new approach: a tougher, more brutal 007 with the plot emphasis on realism rather than far-fetched tales of world-domination, super villains, and silly gadgets. The last time the production team behind the world's favourite spy tried this, they gave us License to Kill—a film I personally loved, but critics seemed to hate. However, this time around, I seem to be the odd one out: critics raved about Daniel Craig's debut outing as James, whereas I struggled with the film, finding it poorly scripted and directed, and way too long.

Set at the beginning of Bond's career, Casino Royale sees the top spy first earning his 007 status (by killing two people) and then, after chasing down a bomb-maker, taking on bad guy Le Chiffre, banker to international terrorists. When Le Chiffre loses his investors' cash after a failed attack on an airliner, he attempts to win it back in a poker game at the titular Casino Royale. Bond, no slouch at the game himself, tries to make sure that this doesn't happen.

So why don't I like this film as much as previous outings for Bond, and who do I hold responsible? Well, I don't blame Daniel Craig: he looks the part and plays the charismatic spy very well, bringing a tough edge to the role which was sorely lacking with Pierce Brosnan.

I guess that the blame must be apportioned to scriptwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, and director Martin Campbell. The convoluted plot has loads of moments which stretch plausibility beyond breaking point, and Campbell's muddled handling of the movie makes following proceedings very difficult.

The first surefire indicator that something was up were the opening credits, which were devoid of the usual magnificent hypnotic blend of girls and guns; instead we get some crap CGI graphics.

The next iffy moment sees Bond pursuing a foe through a building site, with both men navigating the terrain with superhuman agility. As if they're playing some crazy full-sized platform game, they jump up and down and across all manner of obstacles with complete disregard for their own safety. Whilst this all looks very impressive, it is very hard to swallow. That's the sense of realism blown right there!

And the film's tense non-action 'highlight', Bond's card game with his arch enemy, is plain boring. Will Bond win or will he lose his £15million? Will I stay awake to find out? After much tedious card-play, Le Chiffre outwits Bond at poker in a move I saw coming a mile away, but, when Bond's luck changes, poisons our hero in a fit of bad sportsmanship (it's a good job Bond's new car is fitted with a selection of antidotes and a defibrillator!!).

Then, after an admittedly nasty torture scene in which James gets his knackers bashed, the film completely stalls with some lovey-dovey tripe which nearly sees our agent hang up his Walther PPK forever. A last ditch attempt to revive the audience sees James in one final gunfight in a sinking building in Venice—a case of too little, too late.

As an action film, I guess Casino Royale is OK; as a Bond film, it's mediocre at best.
10/10
Their word was their Bond.
bushtony20 November 2006
The producers promised us something new, and their word was their Bond.

Once I acclimatised myself to the level and tone it's pitched at I absolutely, thoroughly enjoyed it. Best Bond film since Lcence To Kill - and it is a "Bond film," despite some flailing critics deliberately manufacturing garbage diatribes to the contrary because they are at a loss to develop a truly functional critique.

It has the character of James Bond in it played by an actor with a rare understanding of what that character is all about. This is not a Bond for Brosnan or Moore only fans, but holds appeal for those whose preferences included Connery, Lazenby and Dalton. Those used to and entrenched in hopeless love with the schoolboy targeted pseudo-Bond of the Brosnan tenure will not understand nor possess the capacity to accept or enjoy this movie.

It is produced well, directed with dynamic flair and instinctive Bondian comprehension and conceptualisation (which surprised me, I admit) by the much evolved and improved Martin Campbell, and underpinned by a thoughtful and literate screenplay. It's a classic Bond updated to the modern world. I had reservations, but it's more or less what I wanted to see. There are flaws, it's not perfect, but I think it's a brave and positive forward step.

Much spleen has been vented upon issues of Daniel Craig's casting, continuity and anything that constituted change from the well-worn formula. Twenty minutes into the film, all these concerns and considerations evaporate with the realisation - for anyone who has ever read the books - that Craig's portrayal is the closest to Flemings concept of the Bond character than anyone else's (including Connery and Dalton). It is so refreshing and exciting it gives that "Yes!" feeling when you realise that Craig has nailed it.

On the downside, it's overlong and would have benefited from trimming by 15-20 mins for cinema release. The expected director's cut DVD will be even longer - not a problem for me personally - but some with limited attention spans may feel their interest waver slightly. Plus, the character of Le Chiffre isn't given enough to do and never fully makes his presence felt until the expertly handled torture scene - by which time...well, you have to see the film.

Personally, it's one of the best Bonds and I think it's going to grow in stature (much like OHMSS) as time moves on. I eagerly await the next instalment. After years of treading water, Bond is back where he belongs.
7/10
Heavily Hyped But Still A Good Action Movie
Theo Robertson20 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Things weren't looking too promising when new Bond Daniel Craig was unveiled to the general public . Due to health and safety regulations Craig was required by law to wear a life jacket as the speedboat he was in shot along the Thames and stopped in front of a crowd of not very enthusiastic paparazzi . Craig didn't do his cause much good by his awkward mannerisms that seemed to shout " I'm actually a serious thespian and all this publicity is slightly annoying to a self respecting luvvie like myself " On top of that the press were very vocal in stating that this Bond had blonde hair and would never be taken seriously as Ian Fleming's superhero . It's impossible to believe this now but very few people thought Daniel Craig would be any type of success in the role

To their credit the producers have gone back and rewritten history . CASINO ROYALE was the first Bond novel and so this cinematic version of CASINO ROYALE is effectively the first Bond movie with previous entries DR NO to DIE ANOTHER DAY being conveniently forgotten about . It was a massive gamble to take but the producers just about manage to pull it off . What it does is make Bond a far more rounded character rather than the cartoonish parody he was in the lesser Moore films or DIE ANOTHER DAY . It also leaves more scope for future films in the franchise since we an introductory scene for CIA agent Felix Leiter who " disagreed with something that ate him " in LICENCE TO KILL . Unfortunately he's not given much to do here or in the later QUANTUM OF SOLACE . It seems strange with hindsight that Leiter was brought back in this case

Despite the hype surrounding CR which many people claim is the greatest Bond movie ever there are a few flaws to it . One is that it follows the novel a bit too closely in the second half . In the novel Le Chiffre doesn't really do anything evil except play cards and wallop Bond in the genitals and this is recreated on screen . However this is rather small fry for a movie bad guy and you do find yourself wishing his cruelty could have fleshed out more . There's also an obligatory daft sequence where a defibrillator comes in to play which leads you to ask if Bond's a clairvoyant . CR also feels overlong by about half an hour

That said the first half is superb and the African scenes where Bond pursues his quarry back to the embassy are amongst the most exciting action sequences you will see in any movie . Likewise the attempted bombing at Miami airport that shows Bond can be a callous assassin when he has to be . Craig is wonderful in the role and he's helped in no small part by a lack of comedy situations and characters as seen in previous entries . Some people might miss Q and his gadgets but I didn't . I much preferred this serious character driven Bond

CASINO ROYALE breathes new life in to a cinema franchise that is over 40 years old . Many critics describe it as the best Bond ever but I have to disagree because what stops it being so is that suffers from a rather weak second half where it sticks too rigedly to the book but for the first hour and twenty minutes I was compelled by this reinvention of James Bond 007
3/10
The Bourne Holdem Highlights (or Bond stirred with pathos)
vostf13 February 2008
We're far away from the original 007 concept. Bond is now a very sad character, more exactly a pathos-leaden character. Sure this was the basis of Ian Fleming's novel, but the 15-odd first installments in the series had established something else. Humor perfectly blended with action and engaging stories. So good a recipe it was the most successful franchise ever (did the word franchise ever come up before Goldfinger clearly established that all this was not merely a transient craze?).

Now 007 is closer to that poor boy Jason Bourne, always running, fighting his guts out and on and on... never getting something because that all depends on how long the producers are thinking about duplicating the recipe. Did I mention that Martin Campbell is, at most, a shrewd journeyman compared to Paul Greengrass? That should be a detail for most people but, well, that does matter. Even if Jason Damon-Bourne is a bland character, Paul Greengrass saves it. Daniel Craig brings a lot of charisma to his characterization but he's no funny man. Smiles are work for him, the same way his impressive body suggests lots of iron pumping while the previous Bond all had a natural force which was anecdotally physical. They were kind of super-heroes with gentlemen-thieves super powers.

Yes I do think Daniel Craig is miscast. He may be a very fine actor, but he looks too concerned to fit in the Bond shoes. Yet with all the "refocusing" Casino Royale displays, the producers clearly deserving all the blaming, I can only say, like an old bag, that "Bond movies are no longer as good/funny/entertaining as they used to be". Hey maybe it's just that times have changed and that the producers were very smart to follow the trends of... well the trends described in some marketing study. That must be it. Anyway I do think Casino Royale is a poor movie. Not only a lame installment in the franchise, but really an uninteresting movie, save the fact it stimulates me to try and understand what may be going on in the nine-digit industry at the moment.

Bonuses:

The prologue sequence is the worst (i.e. pointless, cheap, ugly...) in 45 years of Bond regular deliveries.

The subsequent Titles Sequence is also the worst I can remember. Did they pay digital scam artists to throw up that stuff?

Action scenes: Ô the magnificent God of overflowing Action! OK guys, that rocks, but don't you think there's a slight problem in your movie when the hero stops moving like superman? Doesn't he look like a stuffed puppet? Action should have a meaning, it must be combined with suspense, else action for action's sake leads to a movie that looks like a tour de force patchwork. And 2h30 of patchworking is more than one can stand, so please go toy with last year visual ideas at MTV's and leave Bond movies to adults.
10/10
"Casino Royale" left me neither shaken nor stirred.
zardoz-139 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When Sean Connery appeared in the third 007 thriller "Goldfinger" in 1964, the James Bond film franchise had won audiences over with its surefire formula of combining girls and gadgets with epic international criminal intrigue. James Bond always tangled with megalomaniacal villains whose larger-than-life ambitions dwarfed the skulduggery of commonplace lawbreakers. Each Bond adventure emerged as an event decked out with stunts galore and often a chart-topping title tune. The "Casino Royale" title tune is instantly forgettable. The formula served the series well as the last Pierce Brosnan 007 thriller "Die Another Day" amassed more than $400-million-plus at the box office in 2002.

Fearful that they couldn't top themselves again and fresh out of imaginative ideas, the Bond producers decided to start from scratch, like George Lucas did—with far greater credibility than he is given—with "Star Wars: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace." Not only did the 007 producers send Pierce Brosnan packing, but they also trashed their tried-and-true formula. Anybody remember the new Coke? Well, Sony and Columbia Pictures, which bought out United Artists—the distributor of the previous 20 Bond pictures—have unveiled the new Bond. If you look at the money that "Casino Royale" has generated and you read the critics, the new Bond and the actor impersonating him—Daniel Craig of the first "Tomb Raider" movie—are performing better than anybody could have surmised.

Most new Bonds amount to underachievers, such as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969) and "Live and Lie Die" (1973), and Bonds that forsake the formula usually crash and burn. Aside from its earnings and its widespread critical support, "Casino Royale" is barely a Bond opus. Neither M's secretary—Miss Moneypenny—nor Bond's gadget supplying guy—Q, show up in the 21st 007 thriller. The producers have dispensed with risqué names for the heroines and the villainesses, and the stunts are largely low-tech. The clever one-liners that our globe-trotting hero spouts and the larger-than-life villains are both conspicuously absent.

Instead, "Casino Royale" qualifies as a prequel, showing how James Bond acquired his license to kill before he became the polished practitioner of seduction and sadism in the earlier 007 outings. No, the new Bond is set in the here and now rather than the yonder of yesteryear. Actually, the black & white opening sequence is supposed to take place before the first Bond movie "Dr. No" and then the remainder of the movie—in color—occurs after "Die Another Day." Along the way, the filmmakers have cherry picked only bits and pieces from the 1953 Ian Fleming original novel where the redoubtable, double-0 agent made his debut.

Suffice it to say that "Casino Royale" establishes James Bond's lethal credentials and shows him gambling with a crafty criminal genius in a high-stakes poker game. Compared with previous Bonds, "Casino Royale" is about neither the next plot to take over the world nor a devious scheme to mastermind the perfect crime. James Bond earns his license to kill status in the opening black & white sequences that lack any kind of excitement and seem rather like a picnic for him. He beats a guy up in a public restroom and outsmarts an opponent who holds him at gunpoint with an empty weapon. Afterward, Bond makes a buffoon of himself by shooting dead a couple of people at a foreign embassy and getting caught on a surveillance camera in the act of killing! Of course, M (Judi Dench of the Brosnan Bonds) is predictably furious. "In the old days, if an agent did something that embarrassing, he'd at least have the good sense to defect." Later, British Intelligence learns that Le Chiffre (Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen of "King Arthur"), who bankrolls terrorists, has got to win big at the gambling tables at Casino Royale or face death from one of his savage, machete-wielding African clients. M sends Bond to beat Le Chiffre at cards, and the British Treasury assigns Vesper Lynd (Parisian actress Eva Green of "Kingdom of Heaven") to see that 007 doesn't blow the big bucks.

"GoldenEye" director Martin Campbell is back calling the shots on Bond 21. He must have forgotten, however, what makes a good Bond. First, "Casino Royale" clocks in at 144 tedious minutes, the longest Bond on record—longer than Peter Hunt's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Second, there are lengthy stretches where nothing extraordinary happens. The color opening set piece where Bond and a black villain cavort around a construction site as if they had wings on their ankles grows tiresome but looks spectacular. Later, a white-knuckled fight in a motel stairwell goes on ad-nauseam. The chief villain is appropriately ruthless, but he doesn't do anything to make you genuinely hate him. He does whip Bond into a frenzy in one scene, but that's small potatoes compared with other Bond bad guys. Actually, the secondary villains pose more of a threat than Le Chiffre and his clowns. Most, "Casino Royale" is humdrum and humorless in its efforts to be realistic.

The Robert Wade and Neal Purvis screenplay offers few surprises (especially if you've perused the Ian Fleming novel) and the movie serves up two false endings before an explosive but hardly exciting finale in urban renewal in the exotic city of Venice. The only thing that differentiates Le Chiffre is his ability to shed a bloody tear or two. Daniel Craig plays James Bond as a hopelessly straightforward and tight-lipped, blue-collar thug with muscles. He resembles a cross-between of Steve McQueen of "Bullitt" and Yoda from "Star Wars." He is tough and rugged but lacks charisma. Furthermore, he has to rely on others to get him out of tight spots. Indeed, if it weren't for Vesper Lynd, Bond would never have accomplished his mission—bittersweet as it turns out.

"Casino Royale" ranks as an uninspired but ambitious stab to make over one of the most successful franchises in film history. As a traditional, old-school Bond fan, "Casino Royale" left me neither shaken nor stirred.
8/10
If you take a life, do you know what you'll give?
Horst_In_Translation19 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
That's what it says in Chris Cornell's excellent Bond song to Casino Royale. And it's not only a fitting reference to Vesper's struggles in the shower, but also an accurate line to describe Daniel Craig's approach to the role as he takes over one of the most famous characters from literature and cinema. Let's stay with Cornell though: His music here is the epitome of energetic and I wish it could have been included on more occasions during the movie the way it was handled in older films, even if the old traditional tune is also always nice to listen to. But it's on a level of true greatness. Some Bond songs, even if I don't find them bad by any means, I grow a bit tired of after listening to them many times, but this one here I still can't get enough of after all these years. Now, as for the movie, I'm always a bit skeptical when people say "It's a good film, but it is not really Bond anymore". Moore gave it a lighter approach, Dalton played the character in a way that is considered the closest to the one in the books. And Daniel Craig surely showed in his first film that he can carry the franchise as well. His approach is the taciturn one, the one that makes up for his sparing of words through his actions. And he really is a loose cannon, so much fun to watch. The prologue summarizes his anticipatory, yet very physical, performance impressively when he hunts down a disloyal MI6 member. But let's also take a look at the basics: The director is Martin Campbell, definitely not a household name despite how prolific he has been, also long before this film. He directed Pierce Brosnan in that one's first film over a decade earlier and that was quite a success I think. This was maybe the reason why he got chosen again and this BAFTA-winning film here is also probably by far his most known career work. And who knows, maybe Campbell does it once more with whoever follows Craig. So far, he is two from two. Writers Purvis and Wade are also no rookies at all to the Bond franchise and have collaborated on other occasions. Add to that Paul Haggis for whom 2006 was not exactly a weak year either if you take a look at the Oscars, even if he is still getting a lot of hate for that nowadays.

After the good-as-always intro with the aforementioned song (which is symbolic for the masculinity Craig brings as there had been exclusively female performers since Dalton's first film almost 20 years earlier), we see a solid chase scene with Bond chasing and killing a bomb maker in Madagascar. After the usual scolding from M (the incomparable Judi Dench, who was also in the Brosnan films already), he goes to the Bahamas and goes after a man named Dimitrios (while seducing his wife). At this point, I was slightly disappointed. This was perhaps the weakest part of the film. But it's all way up from there. The terrorist attack about to happen at the airport is already pretty good, especially with Bond's smile (you don't see that too often with Craig) the moment the bomb detonates and when Eva Green's Vesper Lynd enters the picture, the film gets pretty great and won't leave that territory anymore until the end. Already their first scene in the airplane showed how great their chemistry was when they are analyzing each other psychologically in the most entertaining manner. Lots of banter there already, even with serious topics like being orphaned. It's always nice to have a Bond girl with more substance than usual and that surely applies to Miss Lynd. The scene in the shower, her reaction when Bond fights the two African henchmen and of course the final scenes in Italy make her one of my favorite female performances in Bond movies. And just like Diana Rigg in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", she manages to melt Bond's heart as well more than Bond girls usually do. The scenes when he hears her being tortured in the room next to him are pretty sad and it's the only moment he is at least remotely in danger of telling the password. The ending was truly sad as well and the moment we see her lose consciousness in the water is heartbreaking. Eva Green isn't really a traditional beauty as many others before her were, but that's exactly what helps her here and, of course, visually she's still totally breathtaking, in the casino and pretty much every time she's on the screen. Anyway, everything from her introduction onwards is just a huge blast, which means the film already delivered in one of the key categories of what makes a good Bond movie.

Another criterion would be the main villain. Of course, we don't need to talk about Mads Mikkelsen's great range and here he brings it all to the character as well. Le Chiffre is as scary as he's mysterious and it helps that he's not some kind of super-villain, but also has his demons as he's in desperate need to get back the money he owes his investors. His struggles are always worth a watch, like when everybody at the table orders the same drink like Bond (nice reference to shaken/stirred from the older Bond movies by the way, just like the more obvious later on), and Bond is still the center of the room, even if he just lost very many chips to Le Chiffre. Maybe the latter's comment on how he wants the same, but without the vegetables was supposed to show us how he competes with Bond in terms of masculinity. Or tries to at least. Or of course his tears of blood, which were a very smart inclusion, even if I kinda feel they could have done more with those story-wise. Or his look at Bond right after he drank the poisoned glass. So much focus to detail, in terms of how he was written and portrayed, makes him a great character.

Then there were all the supporting characters: M, Leiter, the other poker players, Mathis (played by the Oscar-nominated Giannini)... who were all portrayed accurately, even if they didn't really have that much to work with. And Leiter was still a new guy here, not a close friend to Bond as in the Dalton film(s) for example. I already mentioned many actors and characters here, but as a German, I shall also not forget about two that I like quite a bit. Clemens Schick plays a henchman here who is even more silent than his boss. Unusual to see him with a bald head. And, even more importantly, we have Ludger Pistor, who is always a delight and he even has some comedic material, like how in his last scene (of admittedly not too many) he even manages to put a smile on Craig's character's locked lips. Great actor! Besides, in this scene we also find out about the password (if your eyes weren't fast enough earlier) and go pay attention to how Vesper reacts the moment she realizes what she means to him, especially in comparison to what she's doing to him. Where she is sending the money.

This is definitely a pretty long movie at almost 2.5 hours, especially if you compare it to the one that followed right afterwards. So, just like with Craig's Bond approach, you can never be sure about anything. Still, it obviously flew by and it's almost impossible not to like it, even if many people found criticisms here. For me not a decisive factor. Also those who complain about the film lacking the charm from the old Connery and Moore films should see that there are many references to the classics. I already mentioned the drink for example. Or take how the boss kills some of his own as they are not competent enough. Or how beautiful women die, but not before they ended up between the sheets with 007. This was actually very cleanly structured. Mikkelsen's and Green's characters did not really enter the picture before Dimitrios (Abkarian) and his woman were out. In the truest sense of the word. And even if scenes like the one in which Bond almost dies from the poison do not feel particularly retro, they still add some high-quality modern grit.

The film is packed with great scenes: all the poker action (you don't need to be an expert to understand what's going on as Mathis keeps explaining to Lynd and the audience throughout), said defibrillator scene in the car, the torture scene (a nightmare for every male really), Mathis' arrest, but also how he got rid of the corpse (talk about killing two birds with one stone) or his final scene with the drink, retirement in Italy and many more. Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen make this film a mesmerizing watch. It's also the small moments that count, once again how Bond manages to charm each and every girl in this film (probably even M, although she won't admit it). Take the one at the reception early on that tells him where to find a certain character or also the woman running the early round of roulette that was a bit of a preparation for the big game between Bond and Le Chiffre. Casino games were nothing new at all to Bond movies. They have used them so many times, even if the impact at the center of the story was rarely (maybe never) as massive as it was in here. Also interesting reference about basically funding a terrorist organization with millions and millions of money. And also how we are led to believe Bond might have a bit of a gambling problem when he asks for additional millions. Luckily, Leiter is there to help him. Maybe that's how their friendship started. The one we see so often in the movies, movies much older than this one here. And the very last shot and line were very smart too, a nice reference to the older movies, not only in terms of coolness, but also in making audiences curious about Craig's second 007 outing that features another actor with Scandinavian roots as the main antagonist. In general, this one here is a film that includes a really colorful array of performers from all over the place. Brits, Germans, Italians, Danes, Americans, French, Africans, Bosnians... And of course, it also takes us all across the globe once again. With a better first half hour, this would probably have gotten a perfect score from me and be my favorite film of 2006. But this way, it still sits comfortably in my top5 of the year. Very much recommended.
5/10
Daniel Craig can be a good tough action character, but as James Bond, he's no Sean Connery
roland-1042 December 2006
The highly capable actor, Daniel Craig, certainly shows here that he's got the chops to be a brute of an action character. He belongs in a French noir gangster flick. He's wasted, or, perhaps more accurately, miscast in this bloated, overheated remake of the original James Bond movie. The 1967 version of Casino Royale starred David Niven: too urbane and fragile. Craig is raw and rough edged: he can take anything and dish it out as well, but suffers from lack of suavity. Sean Connery effected a proper balance between acting the thug and the worldly aesthete.

I grew weary after 90 minutes watching this film. It isn't so much a bore as an insult to the intelligent viewer. It offers scenes in two modes: (1) mile-a-second action, with over the top, not to be believed, inchoate chases set to wild orchestral paroxysms with added loud percussive thumps. It plays like an action comic strip. When this mode is inoperative, we instead get static close encounters between characters that are burdened by banal, dull dialogue.

Sean Connery was never banal. He had a knack for injecting a flicker of humor or sexual arousal at just the right moments. The problem here is perhaps in part bad writing and in part Daniel Craig's take, playing Bond for the heavy. With Mads Mikkelson and Isaach De Bankolé as bad guys, Dame Judi Dench as M, Giancarlo Giannini as M16's man in Montenegro, Jeffery Wright as Bond's CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter, and Caterina Murino, Eva Green and Ivana Milicevic as glam interests. My grades: 5.5/10, C+ (Seen on 12/01/06).
7/10
Enjoyable, but hardly anything to go nuts over
zetes4 December 2006
To me, Bond movies are very low on the cinematic totem pole, occupying the space right above Elvis movies and right below non-Pixar CGI talking animal movies. The new Casino Royale has been hailed as a reinvention of the series, and in some ways it is. It loses most of the high-tech gadgets and takes itself a bit more seriously than its immediate, Pierce Brosnan-starring predecessors (which I'll admit are the only ones I'm really familiar with, with the single exception of Dr. No). But honestly, the differences have been exaggerated. It still relies heavily on huge action set-pieces with drawn-out chases and loud explosions. It's very much an action movie of the current generation, and in no way represents anything trailblazing, in Bond or anything else. The story may be more down to Earth and more complex (or complicated), but the action sequences are just as ludicrous as anything you'll find in your average summer blockbuster. Plus, the thing runs on forever, a ridiculous two and a half hours, and there are long stretches where I was getting rather bored (especially during the completely unbelievable and uncharacteristic sub-plot where James Bond falls in love). It does have its good points. Eva Green is chief among them, as the most interesting woman Bond has ever been involved with, and by far the best actress that I've ever seen in the series. The villain, played by Mads Mikkelsen, is also quite good, though perhaps too reminiscent in his appearance of some of the earlier Bond villains like Dr. No and Auric Goldfinger. Judi Dench is the only returning actor, and she's wonderful as always. Also Jeffrey Wright, packing a fun surprise, and good ol' Giancarlo Giannini – nice to see he's still kicking! And Daniel Craig? Well, he's great. But so was Brosnan. The filmmakers involved with Brosnan just gave him crap to work with, and I guarantee you the same thing will happen to Craig. Casino Royale is definitely better than all of Brosnan's Bond films, but only by a slight margin. Remove Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist from The World Is Not Enough (and the line "I thought Christmas only came once a year" – one of the biggest howlers of all time) and that movie would have been just as serious and dramatic as this one is, and just as good. And neither would be as good as either of the Bourne movies, and, sadly, for 2006 movies Casino Royale comes in second behind another spy thriller, Mission: Impossible III. There are similar scenes in both films where the heroes have to shock themselves to stay alive. That scene in M:I:III is a hundred times more well done than the one here. Despite my complaints, I do think the film works perfectly fine as popcorn-munching entertainment, but to suggest that it's anything more than that is frankly laughable. One last note: this film ought to have been rated R. It's too violent to be PG-13.
5/10
I was slightly disappointed.
Carycomic18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes: Daniel Craig combines the ruthless efficiency of Sean Connery with some of the (under-rated) pathos exhibited by Timothy Dalton. And, yes: for only the third time in the series, the high-tech genius called Q is absent. But, a credit to the Bond flicks that have gone before it? With regard to continuity, I'd have to say: undeniably no!

First of all; this is supposed to be a prequel, explaining how Bond became a double-oh agent, in the first place. So, why wasn't this set at the tail end of the Cold War, instead of the present day?

Secondly; Bond, himself, admits (in "Dr. No"), that he had never met Felix Leiter, up to that point. He had only heard of him. So, why throw all that out the window? Why couldn't the writers have made Jeffrey Wright's character a CIA operative _working_ for Felix?

Last, but not least? Judi Dench's character is only supposed to have been promoted to M, just a short time BEFORE the theft of that high-tech chopper in "Goldeneye." So, if ret-conning now places that in the near-future, shouldn't Dench have been nothing more than a female Chief of Staff, filling in for an absent male M? After all; that's how they did it in "For Your Eyes Only," following the real-world death of Bernard Lee (Connery's M)!

So, I'm sorry, folks. But, there's only so much revisionism my suspension-of-disbelief can stand. The same kind of revisionism killed the film-series based on Tom Clancy's "Jack Ryan" novels. And, may yet do the same to even 007.
4/10
I miss the old times
stensson28 December 2006
There is some renewing here, but it's not about improvement. There's too much running, too much playing cards and absolutely too many cellphones!

There is a serious try of making the love story interesting, but the two contrahents are not that exciting. There is also a try of updating (or is it really an updating?) the world of Bond, including modern terrorism and its financing. But you don't really care. Bond is always, like he always has been, more interesting than the plot. But the actor performing his character here hasn't that power.

One misses the playfulness, the irony, the sarcasms. I prefer any Bond movie from the 60s and not at all just because of Sean Connery.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Knock Knock! Who's there? The new 007!
AvinashPatalay4 January 2008
True to any 007 flick, the movie open up with a bang. Action sequences are fantastic and the background score adds to the punch. Sadly the middle portions of the movie crawl. Gets mushy-mushy showcasing the softer & romantic side of James Bond. Realistically what else could be expected on a table of cards?

Missing Moneypenny and Q (or R, whatever). Are they taking away all the gadgetry's from 007 and making him more human?

Judi Dench is effective as "M".

Eva Green was charming.

Daniel Craig is admittedly rugged, but sadly wooden. He has a tinch of Timothy Dalton in him IMO. Probably he will do better in his next round of James Bond and if he doesn't, there is no much choice but to wait until the next one is found.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Can a movie be overrated and underrated at the same time?
gridoon26 August 2007
Probably the most controversial Bond film to date (along with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", with which it shares a lot of similarities), "Casino Royale" has been described as anything from "the best Bond movie ever" to "the worst Bond movie ever". After watching it twice, now that the hype has died down a little, I would call it simply an above-average Bond film, give it a 6 out of 10, and rank it somewhere alongside "The Living Daylights" and "The World Is Not Enough".

One of the problems with CR is that it doesn't seem 100% sure of the type of Bond audience it's going for: those who want the class and intelligence of films like "From Russia With Love" and "Goldfinger", or those who prefer the Rambo Bond mentality of films like "License To Kill" and "Tomorrow Never Dies"? It ends up going for both, and at times you feel as if you're watching 2 or 3 different films: for example, the expressionistic Black & White prologue that recalls the style of classic film noirs is soon followed by a laughably excessive foot chase sequence ("Someone is chasing me. I know, I'll climb up a crane so we can fight there, that seems to be a good idea!") that seems to exist only for "wow" purposes. The movie dares, to its credit, to spend a lot of time around a poker table, where all the action occurs in looks, words and gestures, but not before another extraneous and over-the-top chase/fight scene at an airport. The production values are very high and the international locations are often breathtaking, but some of the dialogue is unbelievably corny (Le Chiffre's "I see you take good care of your body" to Bond is the most homoerotic line in the series since Mr. Wint's "She's very attractive....for a woman" in "Diamonds Are Forever").

Leaving aside my pro-Brosnan prejudices, I must say Daniel Craig surpassed my expectations as the new 007. He brings a harshness to the role that is comparable to Timothy Dalton's, except he has more style than him and is better at the playful banter. However, in his second film he will have to play a more suave and experienced Bond, and it remains to be seen how he'll pull it off. Eva Green is fine (and prettier without makeup), but the woman that caught my eye more was Ivana Milicevic, as the villain's girlfriend, who has one of the sexiest backsides I've ever seen. Sadly, her role is small and mostly silent. As Le Chiffre, Mads Mikkelsen is IMO one of the weak spots of the movie. He is more of a poser than a threat, and the fact that we see him getting bullied by other characters in the film doesn't help any. Jesper Christensen, although he doesn't appear in more than 3 scenes, creates a more interesting villainous presence as the mysterious Mr. White. Judi Dench as M is a plus, but there are no other memorable minor characters, unlike, say, "Goldeneye", where you also had Xenia, Zukovsky, Boris, Orumov, Q, etc.

My conclusion, based on the length (140 minutes), the way Craig plays Bond and the plot turns in the last 30 minutes of the film, is that CR could be described as a better-made modern version of OHMSS. It presents things that some people never want to see in a Bond movie (Bond falling in love, quitting the service, a downbeat ending, etc.) while others like them so much that they proclaim the film a masterpiece. In a series as long as this one (21 official films and counting, plus "Never Say Never Again"), preferences are always going to be even more subjective than usual. But if you rank OHMSS among the top Bond films (personally I don't), then you'll probably do the same with this one.
5/10
Bond in the beginning
paul2001sw-11 May 2007
Everyone knows what a James Bond movie should be like, with spectacular special effects, evil villains and Bond's suave sexiness. A host of actors have played the role with different emphasis, and the last Bond movie I saw, featuring an invisible car, was fun but very close to parody (the difference between it and the 'Austen Powers' Bond-spoofs was really quite small). In fact, Mike Myers was not the first to spoof Bond: the rights to Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, 'Casino Royale', were separate from his later novels and the story was filmed independently from the rest of the Bond movies to comic effect. Now we get an "offical" 'Casino Royale', and a new Bond to boot. Daniel Craig is the least suave Bond to date, he seems to have inner demons, and the story has been filmed with Bond cast as an inexperienced young agent: the soundtrack reflects this, denying us the familiar Bond theme until its hero has earned it at the end of the movie. There's also a darker note to the plot (although it's disappointingly softened in the debrief). Unfortunately, the gambling scenes are desperately dull (think 'The Cincinatti Kid' for evidence that they can be done better) and the movie as a whole is neither fish nor fowl: you can't quite take it seriously as a thriller, and there are fewer campy laughs than in the rest of the series. But the public seems to like it, and so this rather ludicrous franchise continues into a new age.
10/10
not an all-time champion Bond film, but one that makes me anticipate Craig- and more Bond movies like this- in the future
Quinoa198419 November 2006
Casino Royale goes back to the basics in the sense that it's from an Ian Fleming novel, the first time in many years that the franchise reaches back into Fleming's old bag of tricks. That the filmmakers also decide to transfer the story- however much it sticks to the original source I can't say- from communist villains to just plain terrorist dealers and the like. It still has the formula going for it, but not cranked up as it has been in the Pierece Brosnan James Bond films as of late. And it's great to see that the sense of humor is not too keyed up on itself, but rather back to the sly, almost sophisticated lines and moments of innuendo. It's also overlong by at least five minutes, if not more, and despite a good romantic angle in the story with Daniel Craig's 007 and Eva Green's Vesper, that too could've been trimmed just a little. But the dramatic power is matched only by the ruthless abandon of the action from director Martin Campbell; not even as twisting and double-crossing a plot like this can get can get in the way of the real delights of a Bond film, which are exploited well.

In fact, I'd say if for nothing else go to see the films to see Craig run, and then run some more, and kick ass and take as many names possible. The franchise decided with Craig to go back all the way to the beginning to Bond's first major assignment after making rank, by taking devious part in an ultra high-stakes poker tournament with its main guy Le Chiffre (Maks Mikkelson, excellent as a tearing-blood villain who may or may not be the middleman-bad guy). But even before this we've already seen Bond at work chasing down a hired-gun in Madagascar (quite the almost opening action sequence if I do say so), and another at an airport, which is the highlight action sequence for my money. These action scenes are done unpretentiously, and with an equal voracity on hero and foe- it's really a question of who can get who off one's back, or run faster or drive harder during these scenes. And in all of this Craig, if not as handsome as previous Bond stars, is assuredly up for the challenge of being rough and gritty in all of this. It helps to see him in this almost cold and detached secret-agent mode, as it does help make the romantic sub-plot- the usual one- with a little more depth.

This romantic plot unfolds already after Bond's first semi-rendezvous with a lady in the Bahamas, with Vesper, played by Green in the great tradition of sultry leading ladies. But this time, being that she's not as big a star as some of the more recent Bond ladies, adds to her appeal. You might wonder what side she's on at first, but it's hard to question her vulnerability. One of my favorite scenes of the film, following a daunting fight in a stairwell, is in a shower, but not at all in the usual seductive way you might think once Bond enters into the shower with her. It's actually really touching, showing Bond's humility in calming her down after being frazzled like that. The romance then unfolds as one might expect, though perhaps to far too quick and extreme lengths (then again, what else do you expect from 007). There is a climax that does lean more to the emotional than the usual catharsis of 'he kills all the bad guys, yey', and actually helps to make the Bond character much more cynical and ready for detachment from his love interests than before thought.

But I'm making this sound a little more ponderous than I should. Casino Royale isn't a great picture, but for the bulk of its time on screen it's extravagantly good entertainment, even when scenes are meant to be more about psychological tension like in the poker game scenes. Seein Craig and Mikkelsen face off at the table is just as enthralling as a good chase scene is. And it assuredly makes me anticipate more adventures with 007, particularly with Craig, who I think should now be poised for a great career as both Bond (for however long it will last) and as a leading man too. A-
5/10
Nope. Sorry - Bond Disappoints - Big Time
strong-122-4788851 July 2013
*Spoiler Alert!*

I don't know about you, but, for me, when it comes to watching people play poker, regardless of how high the stakes are, I think that it's got to be one of the most boring things in the world to watch. It really is. (Like, talk about "Yawn" city!)

Even though Casino Royale contained some fabulous stunt-work and some superb visual effects (the scene involving the Skyfleet airliner at Miami Airport was especially awesome), this film bordered on the very edge of being absolutely ridiculous far too often.

For instance, here's 3 prime examples of how much stupidity the makers of this film actually expected me to accept....

1 - After unknowingly drinking down some deadly poison, Bond goes into cardiac arrest and, yes, he, literally, dies. And, yet, he's actually revived (by someone using a faulty defibrillator, no less) and within minutes he's back playing more poker as if nothing had happened.

2 - Bond is captured by the enemy and taken down to the dungeon-like torture chamber. It's here that his torturer bashes Bond's balls so hard and so often that it's surely enough to cause permanent damage and cripple any other man for the rest of his life. But, not Bond. He miraculously recovers in record time.

3 - Bond officially resigns his position as Special Agent-007 over a treacherous, two-faced woman who was so dumb that she left her cell-phone sitting on top of the dresser, and, in doing so, thus, enabling Bond to track her down.

Duh!..... Need I say more?
5/10
A fallible and gullible James Bond
PWNYCNY2 December 2006
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: "Beware of the hype." There is an inverse relationship between the level of hype and the quality of a movie, and proof of this is this movie. The opening title song is awful, the story inane, and this James Bond is a far cry from the invincible hero of films from the past. Daniel Craig gives a credible performance as a fallible and gullible James Bond and the the leading ladies are lovely, especially Vesper. But good acting and pretty ladies cannot save this movie from what is a weak story. But that should not be surprise. After all, given all the hype that preceded this movie, what else should one expect?
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
You Know My Name
Flagrant-Baronessa5 December 2006
Okay so I like Chris Cornell's title song – don't judge me. And before you ask, yes, the film is THAT good. Although it boasts of a massive 144 minutes worth of running time, it feels completely condensed in each scene, making you want heaps more of each character, storyline and setting. In short, Casino Royale is to the Bond franchise what Batman Begins was to the dead-and-buried Batman: a well-deserved kick up the arse, a blunt diversion from the run-of-the-mill 007 films of recent years, but still retaining faithful key elements from the saga.

The difference between the two springboards Batman Begins and Casino Royale is that while Christian Bale seemed tailor-made for the role of Bruce Wayne, Bond heir to the throne Daniel Craig appeared a dark horse, and attracted much criticism because of it. With rock-chiseled features, an imposingly muscular physique and clear baby blue eyes, I take no shame in admitting he is, by far, the sexiest James Bond we have seen. This may sway my review. Be that as it may, cultists and agnostics alike should recognise that Craig's more human and realistic nature should serve as a mark of his character's credibility in the film. Bond has just been promoted to 007 status – still wet behind the ears – and botches his way through many missions, bleeding, sweating, letting his guard down and pouring his heart out, which further heightens the realism of the otherwise extravagant extravaganza.

I say extravaganza because the core of Casino Royale still retains strong Fleming elements like high-staked poker playing, eccentric villains, gorgeous femmes, unspeakably exotic locations, inventive torture scenes, high-speed car chases with shiny Aston Martins, madly acrobatic stunts, furiously adrenaline-pumping combat, epic aerial shots, high-tech gadgets, product placement by the bucketload and dutiful plot twists. The difference between Casino Royale and previous Bond installments is that all of the aforementioned take a backseat to the story, its central cast and its heart. Sometimes the difference is merely a subtle one: the opening credits are dazzling and Bond-like and at the same time not – there are no naked dancing ladies but a hard-boiled super-agent in the montage. Bond orders a vodka martini, but he does not give a damn if it is 'shaken or stirred'. The mandatory Bond girl is stunningly pretty but also remarkably intelligent. The main Bond villain is theatrical, yes, but he is not a bad person.

The latter, if you want to nitpick, is Casino Royale's fatal flaw. There is a distinct lack of a satisfying villain. The much too peppy-looking Dane Mads Mikkelsen is far too likable in the film and what is more is given a very limited amount of screen time. What good is a superb Mikkelsen if you are not going to use him? Here is a creative and capable actor who is never given the chance to get his scumbag on, even though we are given a taste of his sadistic antics in the notorious torture scene (as well as the explanation why Bond never impregnates his one night stands). As the menacing-sounding Le Chiffe, Mikkelsen is not playing the high-staked poker game in Montenegro for prestige or money; he is doing it because he owes the top of the hierarchy an obscene amount of cash. This creme de la creme group of villains are given screen time much sparingly and there is no ultimate showdown, except perhaps on the poker table at Casino Royale. The good news that needs to be interjected here is that although I do not know a thing about poker, the film crafted its playing sequences so assuredly with perfect angles, tense atmosphere and music that is was impossible not to be entranced in the whole thing.

Luckily (er, I guess) James Bond has enough demons to face without the presence of a clear-cut template villain. The warping of gender roles turns Eva Green as Vesper Lynd into a feisty colleague – not the desperately mouthy and tough-chick politically correct kind (no offense, Halle Berry) but a real, complex individual who shows vulnerability in more ways than panting, pouting, screaming with wide eyes like previous Bond girls. Her character is one of many showcases for how well director Martin Campbell succeeds in taking the middle-road approach in the film. The dialogue is witty and fun, but not desperately punchy. The plot unfolding is unpredictable, but not desperately twisty. James Bond is hard-edged and hard-boiled, but not a pure-bred killing machine. He is good-looking, but not an in-your-face pretty boy. There are some neat gadgets, but there is no over-the-top sci-fi plot fodder developments á la Q.

Casino Royale is as hard as it is hearted and as action-pumping and kinetic as it is introspective. This should be enough for any film and following the low standards that the abysmal Die Another Day set, this may as well be the Godfather of the James Bond franchise. There are one or two films from the franchise that I would perhaps rank higher but it is probable to suspect that nostalgia greatly clouds my judgement there. Best of all is that Casino Royale will not date at all – the setting is timeless and so is the action. I have not met a person who has not enjoyed this film immensely, which should serve as a mark of its high entertainment value. A must-see for cultists and agnostics alike.

9 out of 10
Fleming's Bond
ametaphysicalshark25 March 2008
"Die Another Day" garnered average, but not altogether poor, reviews from critics and was the biggest financial success of Brosnan's era. The franchise could have continued from that point into even more silliness, gadgetry, bad jokes, product placement, and celebrity Bond girls, but in one of the best moves a franchise has made in ages, it didn't. "Casino Royale" is the most drastic reinvigoration of the Bond franchise in its history. Sure, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "The Living Daylights", and "GoldenEye" might have all been turns in a new direction, two of them sadly short-lived, the other ill-fated, but "Casino Royale" marks the purest return to Fleming's vision of Bond since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and it is a move that has created a vocal minority sad to see 'movie Bond' go and a much, much more significant majority that was thrilled and captivated by "Casino Royale" from start to finish.

"Casino Royale" was the first Bond novel by Ian Fleming, and though this film is not all too faithful to the book's events- keeping the main points of the story but changing it to obviously set up "Quantum of Solace" and update it to a modern setting among other things. "Casino Royale" has many strengths, chief among them Craig as Bond, perhaps the best Bond since Connery, with the potential to, dare I say it, be better. Combining just enough suavity with a very strong physical presence ala Dalton, and delivering his one-liners (thankfully kept to a minimum) just as well as Brosnan did his. Then you have the action scenes, in this film only one which even has a significant amount of gunfire, the rest a merciful return to the sort of hand-to-hand combat we haven't seen in a Bond film in decades. The action is well-shot and well-edited, with Martin Campbell keeping the film moving at a swift pace much like he did with "GoldenEye". There are one or two scenes which go on too long, one or two lines that don't quite work, but these things are minuscule complaints given how hugely enjoyable this film is as a whole.

The entire cast is exceptionally good here, Judi Dench continuing to prove that casting her as M was an inspired choice. Mads Mikkelsen makes an excellent LeChiffre, and Eva Green is one of few Bond girls who is a quality actress and seems effortlessly classy. No bimbos to be found here, that's for sure. The film is very well-written and paced and for once it's hard to pick holes in it.

"Casino Royale" takes the Bond franchise in a bold, new, and fresh direction. Following installments will hopefully not become too formulaic and can certainly afford to be slightly more light-hearted and traditionalist (Q & Moneypenny never harmed anybody), but the tone was set just right by "Casino Royale" and hopefully it will stay this way at least for the duration of Craig's run in the role and not fall apart as Brosnan's era sadly did following "GoldenEye".

9/10
5/10
Good-Looking But Lacklustre James Bond Adventure With A Boring Storyline
ShootingShark6 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
British secret-agent James Bond is investigating a corrupt banker called Le Chiffre, who specialises in investing funds from dictators and terrorists. After Bond foils a bomb attack on an aircraft, Le Chiffre fronts a high-stakes poker game in an attempt to win back his losses. Bond joins the game and locks wits with his foe.

This is the twenty-first official James Bond flick, featuring a new actor in the part and filming the only one of Ian Fleming's novels which hadn't been done (if you don't count a stupid but fun spoof version made in 1967). It looks sensationally glamorous, it's very well made, and it courageously dumps all the Roger Moore comedy and tries to present Bond in the more hard-edged Timothy Dalton mold, but it makes a terrible gaffe - it doesn't have any action. It starts off with an outstanding eight-minute sequence featuring Foucan, with delirious jumping stuntwork through a construction site and then a firefight in an embassy, but nothing afterwards comes even close to being as exciting. The airport rescue scene is okay but anticlimactic, but is followed by an interminable hour of mostly poker scenes (five minutes would have done) and soppy luvvy-duvvy stuff. At one point Bond jumps in his natty new Aston Martin DBR9 and you think, here we go - car chase - but it lasts exactly one corner ! There's a better car chase in Terms Of Endearment ! I guess the writers were trying to be faithful to the book, but a James Bond flick with no action is like an adult movie with no sex. Worse still, the plot is confusing and cheap; Green's dramatic death by drowning is bizarre - she locks herself in the lift, effectively committing suicide, and Le Chiffre's masterplan - get rich by investing blood money - is pretty dull. I also hate the way Le Chiffre's faked death is handled. This common plot twist can be done well (for example, in A Return To Salem's Lot) but here we see the character with a bullet-hole in his head, only to have him turn up later wearing a hat and shades so we're not even sure if it's him. Jeez, that sucks. Poor Craig is left to struggle with the script and the tone of the character, but actually manages to come off quite well, at least when he's allowed to make Bond a hard-hearted narcissist. But Danish actor Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre (the French word for number) is given very little to do - how scary can you be playing cards ? The decision to drop the iconography of the series - Q, Moneypenny, gadgets, secret lairs - maybe creates some credibility, but takes away half the fun, and a James Bond film should always be fun. This only just makes the grade as good entertainment and without the Foucan sequence it wouldn't; the producers should check out the current movies of Zhang Yimou - now that's action film-making. Shot in the Czech Republic, Nassau, Venice and Pinewood.
1/10
Royally disappointing!
rams_lakers26 April 2008
I decided to skip this new Bond movie at the box office because I did not like the way Bond movies have become. Any Bond movie after 1983 is total crap, and this series should have died a long time ago to save face.

In the early part of Casino Royale there is an unbelievable chase scene. The black terrorist runs and jumps up and over, through and around, and vaulting through holes in the wall like he's Spider-man. What's even sillier is that Daniel Craig, the new Bond remake flavor of the present, follows him step for step. 20 minutes of this chase is ridiculous as this terrorist should have given Bond the slip 17 minutes ago.

Judi Dench makes another dreadful appearance as M. Why was there no male M during this time? It's like the producers chose to totally ignore the fact that there was an original M at one point. Dench, who I've always hated as M, resorts to what she does best - chastising Bond throughout the movie. They first brought her in to berate Brosnan for sleeping around in a sorry attempt to bring political correctness into the franchise. "Bond shouldn't be having limitless sex – GASP!!!" Most idiots ignore the intent – but I see through the guise and refuse to give in to the new films that support this lame idea. Dench and the lines she is given completely ruined the franchise.

Back in the day there was less fuss about being a Bond Girl and more talent involved in actually being one. The newer actresses are all tickled to be considered bona fide Bond Girls, a fact that dilutes the integrity of the honor. You shut up and play a bimbo – you don't talk about what an honor it is. The honor goes to the pioneers – not the wannabe's! Hale Berry is sexy, but she is no more a Bond Girl to me than Phyllis Diller – because she takes away the mystery of the role by blabbing about how she always wanted to be one in an interview. Being a Bond Girl is better left unsaid. Let the Bond geeks decide who is worthy.

The boring poker game nearly put me to sleep as the producers decided to take advantage of the newest fad that is being shown every hour of the day by ESPN. Sitting on your ass while playing cards is NOT a sport! I kept waiting for this movie to end, and it almost ended 3 times but we were given even more crap to wade through. Bond gets tortured Japanese World War II style – right in the nuts with a hard swinging rope. I'm surprised he could even bed a Bond Girl after these brutal scenes. Is that why he never had kids? And who is that stupid silent bald guy with the big pointy ears? Is he supposed to be intimidating or menacing as he stares at everyone in the villain's lair? Lame sidekicks anyone? This goon was just a nothing.

I can't leave out Daniel Craig's looks – it was extremely hard for me to get around those enormous batwings he has for ears. He looks more like Charlie from the Chocolate Factory's Dad with those ears than any Bond. And those two ladies that "check him out" as he drops off the car - PUH-lease! Why is there no Q and gadgets? Bond the text messager - wow I'm impressed. NOT! Looks like cell phones sell brand names better. Can't get that big money contract for something unproduced like an underwater car. I give this movie a 1 out of 10. While I can watch the pre-1985 Bond movies several times - this one does not warrant another viewing.
1/10
total crap
doorsscorpywag26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
35 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What in the name of God was this drivel all about? Let's face it Bond was pretty daft in the 60s but nowadays he's as relevant as Rickets. Where do they get the idiots from who wrote the script for this nonsense..............the book was lousy and the film laughable.......I could not make head nor tale of it and still don't know who the baddie was and am even less interested. So my government thinks the best way to defeat terrorism is to play cards with it....can't wait to see Blair and Bush make up a 3 card brag school with Bin Laden and the Taleban............ having worked on building sites for over 30 years I laughed my arce off at the opening sequence as Bond and Spiderman fought it out on off tower cranes and bouncing around on the neatest building site on the planet without snagging themselves on some junk left lying around by a careless navvy........who on Earth writes this garbage. The plot...and I use the word very very loosely...... was too stupid to even care about and the acting worse.......I like daniel craig but he's a bit silly as Bond....nobody can emulate ole Sean here and at least he got a couple of decent story lines in the 60s........what next I wonder a remake where Bond has to play Bowls with Bloefeld or maybe Snakes & Ladders with Largo......Bond has been pretty boring since the 70s but this cobblers was so pitifully dull that I would rather watch Spielbergs abysmal remake of War of the Worlds again.....worst movie of 2006 and lets hope that 'Bond Is Back' becomes a term we never hear again in the 21st century........Yeah I know ......as long as Hollywood is devoid of ideas and people are dumb enough to heap praise on such utter crap as this Dan will be lining up in 2008 with another pointless 2 hours of banal mayhem and martinis....shaken of course not stirred.....
10/10
Casino Royale - Awesome!!!
rbylakx13 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
59 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One word... AMAZING. It is the type of Bond film all Bond fans have been waiting for. No more cute, wink wink, laugh out loud unbelievable moments we've all grown tired of. What Casino Royale did was make a very real film, with real life consequences and added a crap load of action. Awesome!!! Daniel Craig has taken the Bond character and ran away with it. I never saw a more believable Bond character since the early films of Sean Connery. Ian Flemming's intentions and spirit for the story and character was taken into major consideration and the results were nothing but positive.

Daniel Craig takes the Bond character to his early days before he is granted the infamous double O status. Casino Royale's Bond is an unrefined, reckless, unpolished, aggressive, injury prone, cold blooded killer. In essence, a raw piece of meat, that as the film goes on and he gains more experience becomes this prime piece of sirloin. All the Bond signatures we've all come to love and expect are not a part of Bond's nature, but gradually falls into place at the right moments through his experiences. The journey it took to get there is the most fun to watch.

What makes Bond such a fan favorite in the past was the way the writers and directors romanticized the character. Bond always had the best gadgets (toys), cool clothes, money, he traveled, women galore, he was smooth, he could fight and play a mean game of cards. Who wouldn't want to be him? Casino Royale took it one step further and said, "What kind of man emotionally would it take to be a double O agent and what are the dangers involved in such an exciting career?" Casino Royale's Bond is bruised, bloodied, beaten, stabbed, poisoned and tortured in several occasions. He walks around half the film covered in scabs and scars. He is detached from his feelings and makes a clear statement how he prefers married women because it is less complicated. With no family and friends, he truly is a man alone with nothing to live for, which makes him the perfect candidate for a double O agent.

I have not given away too much of the plot, for it is better for all Bond fans to see Casino Royale and experience it for one's self. It's one of the best Bond film to come out in decades and ranks in my top 2 or 3 of James Bond films of all time.

A quick note... it is important to remember that this story is supposed to be about Bond before he become the James Bond we all know and love. It's his first time being a double O agent. This is why the writers took liberties with the opening gun barrel scene, the vodka martini, the Aston Martin, and the infamous "Bond, James Bond". I found it a great choice to a very old and established character. We get to see how Bond becomes Bond. Think "Batman Begins", which was another great film.
6/10
Technically Polished, Dramatically Bland Prequel
Bob-4529 May 2007
"Casino Royale," the only prequel in the long running James Bond series, introduces the sixth actor to play James Bond on screen (discounting the silly 1967 spy spoof of the same name), is technically polished; all it lacks is suspense, mystery and entertainment value. As a rule, I hate prequels, the exceptions being "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "Batman Begins;" unfortunately, "Casino Royale" is no exception. Sure, it's realistic, in the "Bourne Identity" mold. However, after watching James Bond as "Superman" all these years, how excited can one get watching two hours of him as "Clark Kent"? I keep hearing what an "exceptional" Bond Daniel Craig is, as though my previous misgivings were SO wrong. Well, anyone who had seen Craig in "Layer Cake" or "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" knew Craig has the acting chops and action chops to play James Bond. Unfortunately, Craig lacks the spark that has tied all previous James Bond's together (even the morbid Timothy Dalton), and that's empathy. I don't care what happens to Craig's Bond; and, given the very little action in "Casino Royale," that's murderous to enjoying the movie. Worse, Craig looks older than his predecessor, Pierce Brosnan. Eva Green's cleavage is the best element of her performance as Vesper; she's not bad, just forgettable, and has little chemistry with Craig.

Barbara Brocolli would have better served herself if she'd "kissed and made up" with Pierce Brosnan, and had "Casino Royale" rewritten as his swan song. Maybe have a terrorist attack be blamed on Bond's incompetence, and "M" being forced to retire him after one final "small potatoes" case. "Casino Royale" would then have been a story of redemption. Maybe add one final twist as Brosnan's "Bond" goes off to marry Green's "Vesper". Have "M" reveal that, like "Bourne," both the name "James Bond" and number "007" are assigned (as suggested in the 1967 "Casino Royale"), and that another agent will eventually be assigned the name and number. Now, that might have made an entertaining movie.

"Casino Royale" is certainly one of the better made Bond films; however, without a doubt, it's the least entertaining in the series. I feel I have been vindicated in my previous misgivings about Craig; and despite the explosive notices and box office for "Casino Royale," I predict Craig's next outing as Bond will be a box office failure. I give "Casino Royale" a "6".
6/10
Not bad, but this isn't Bond any more...
buiger2 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, they have decided to 'modernize' Bond, to adapt the series to the new century..., and everybody seems to love it! Unfortunately for me, I don't.

They have made the Bond character into something human, real, almost your regular every day guy. And (how very politically correct, in pace with the times) he is vulnerable, he has feelings, he falls in love and even resigns from MI-5...! (M's reactions to this - also very politically correct - is literally a motherly: 'Don't worry about it, we can talk about this later'... Give me a break! James Bond should not be a 'regular' human being, James Bond is a mythological animal, and it would have been so much better if they had kept it that way. At least for me. Even the girls are not what they used to be. Now they are all over 30, are called 'women' and have PhD's instead of bikinis! Once again, how very politically correct... What have we come to as a society if even James Bond has to be politically correct? Think about it. Isn't it sad?

Not that this is a bad movie, because it isn't (even though it also has many shortcomings - for example, Montenegro looks more like MonteCarlo, while the reality in that young country couldn't be more different, at least for now), it's just that it isn't a Bond movie any more. A scene that illustrates this best is one in which at a certain point, when asked the proverbial question 'shaken or stirred?' Daniel Craig answers literally "Do I look as though I give a damn?". Call me a nostalgic, but no, this definitely isn't Bond any more.
7/10
Why all the accolades?
dean290028 November 2006
I have to tell you that when this was being made, I didn't expect much other than a standard bond movie which had ditched the subplots and was nothing more than a 90 minute action movie. I was pleasantly surprised when the initial reviews came out and it had a 2 + hour running time and subplots.

I cannot believe I saw the same movie that people are giving a 8.1/10 as of current.

I found the new Bond to be very boring and rougher around the edges. I don't mind the rougher around the edges part but I think people have forgot what made bond MOVIES so good -- he was what every man wanted to be. He was a secret agent that always found a way to get out of danger, always got multiple women, and while completely over the top -- at some level every man would want to be James Bond.

I realize this is a reboot but not Q or R, no Shaken not Stirred, no good car chases, a lame opening, and lack of a real super villain? Come on, Bond movies never relied on realism.

Obviously this film is doing well so they do need my input but for the record, I would get someone more suave to play Bond with a dark side but with a sense of humor. Both Connery and Moore had the sense of humor to add to the fun. Lets face it, some of the best parts of the movie was Q or R showing the new gadgets off. Bonds gadget of choice on this outing -- a freaking cellphone.

I do like the fact that they had the subplots but the stakes weren't high enough to make them interesting.

I also never minded the campiness of the super genius villains. Yes, Austin Powers had a blast making fun of this but they were paying homage to it because it was classic movie making.

Everything in life is subjective and maybe the plot wasn't that interesting to me. Bond and Texas Holdem just seemed stupid. British Intelligence certainly has gone downhill if they cant find a better way to get the money than Bond winning at high stakes poker.

I hope they bring out the go for broke over the top villain in the next movie who is hell bent on ruling the world through mass destruction. I don't care if he in a wheelchair or a psychopath who wears a cape. There has to be a mix in there that appeals to the old bond fanatics and the younger generation.

Also, it didn't feel like a Bond movie. There was something else missing that I cant quite put my finger on.

Heck, I even liked Timothy Dalton as Bond. I liked the Rogue agent bit to revenge his friends death.

Also, please have some sort of great opening sequence. Almost all Bond movies have a great opening sequence to quickly draw the crowd into the movie.

I gave this one a 5/10 but according to IMDb, I guess most people like it a lot more than me.
7/10
Daniel Craig introduction , he is terrific as tough and brutal James Bond
ma-cortes17 April 2007
Seductive James Bond (Daniel Craig) after getting recently the OO7 status goes Uganda to track down a dangerous terrorist . He attempts to chase a criminal in a high-octane pursuit . Bond continues to follow the lead and decide to investigate independently to M (Judi Dench : Shakespeare in love) , MI6's chief . Following the clues goes Bahamas Islands , there beguiling James Bond seduces the beautiful Solange (Caterina Murino) , Alex Dimitrios' wife , involved with Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen : King Arthur) , a corrupt banker . Meanwhile , there is developed a sensational intrigue about an attempt to blow up a big airplane with a terrifying high-lighting . MI6 assigns 007 the mission to play at the 'Casino of Montenegro' against Le Ciffre , in order to earn him and to finish his activity as terrorist financing . There happens an impressive battle of wits between both enemies with high stakes . For the money control , ¨M¨ assigns him the surveillance of Vesper Lynd (Eva Green : Dreamers , Kingdom of heaven), a gorgeous and elegant agent . In Montenegro , Bond is helped by a local agent named Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini : Man of fire , Darkness , Hannibal) ; besides , another Cia agent (Jeffrey Wright) intervenes into the action .

Daniel Craig as a new James Bond is cool , lacks in irony , suavity and sympathy characterized by Roger Moore ; however , earning coldness , cunning , intelligence and toughness like Sean Connery and nearly the character created by Ian Fleming . Here Bond is a brutal revenger , an implacable agent trying to chase villains , pursuing relentlessly the criminals and traveling around the world : Uganda , Mozambique , Bahamas , Montenegro to achieve his aims , even pulling off the heinous killings . As always , Bond will use gadgets and spectacular cars (Aston Martin) , although I miss the classic role ¨Q¨ , but in this entry doesn't appear . The picture contains sensational pursuits , frenetic action-packed and stimulating scenes like are the happenings on the Embassy , airport and the final in Venice location . Agreeable credit title song and atmospheric musical score by the usual in last entries : David Arnold. Colorful , riveting cinematography by Phil Meheux . The motion picture was professionally directed by Martin Campbell (The Zorro) . The film will appeal to James Bond series' fans.
7/10
Something Must Be Wrong With Me
clh-12 December 2006
I'm going to level with you all, straight up:

I prefer gin martinis, stirred- not shaken (though I actually do like Vespers).

My favorites Bond Movie is Live and Let Die.

My Favorite Bond Actor is Roger Moore (except in Octopussy).

I actually like the Dalton years.

I find no redeeming value in George Lazenby's portrayal,

That said, I went into this film knowing it was going to be different. After all the producers have been promising us that since the end of Die Another Day. Well as anyone who has seen any long-running franchise can tell you, reinvention isn't always a good thing. I like both the book and the film interpretations of Bond, but I think they work better when they are separated. Everyone who is a fan of the books, wanted to see a serious adaptation of Casino Royale, and to be honest I did too. But as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for. I sit on the fence on this particular film. It wasn't the worst, but there were many little things that bother me. First and foremost, the product placement really stood out this time around. I know it is nothing new, but it just really was distracting, at first I would chuckle at the appearance of Sony cell phones, because the movie was co-produced by them. Then I sorta giggled at the appearance of the stacked Smirnoff vodka at the Miami airport (both because the bottles were far too large to be allowed in that area of an airport, and because by law, liquor can't be sold that way), but by the time they had a near close-up of the logo of Bond's tux jacket, I'd had enough. Also, even in the books, Bond doesn't kill with a cold heart, he does it because he has to, and essentially because it's the only thing he is good at. In this, although we see the physical difficulties of his work (which I must admit were rather impressive stunt scenes), the psychological aspects are simply paid lip service, an occasional "Gee, this is bad" but really we didn't see any progress or growth. Bond's trademark wit is missing, though it's early in his 00-career (btw, 00-status is an invention of the movies, in the books agents are merely given sequential numbers, the last Flemming novel makes mention of the death of 016 for example), it's not unrealistic for him to make the odd quip or two, which are although kinda outlandish, actually they're pretty realistic because it's a defense mechanism. Bond is bad ass, but he's not a hard ass. Even Dalton knew how to toss out one-liners with a certain amount of irony. And I miss the real gadgets, cell phones and laptops don't count, unless they explode, release tear gas, or also make espresso. One more minor gripe, why the heck doesn't Bond go back to the Walther PPK? Ever since Brosnan switched in Tomorrow Never Dies, it's driven me nuts, and you'd think for "getting back to the basics" they'd use that too. That said, considering the unremarkable script, the acting is above par. The action and stunt sequences are impressive. And the location shooting is absolutely stunning. However I missed the traditional theme, which didn't appear until the end, and even then sounded like it was rather poor cover. One of the great things about the theme is that it can be adjusted to the situation on screen and makes for an outstanding running soundtrack, here was a wannabe theme, that devolved from the unremarkable opening credits song.

Update 2008: I gave this film another star, because my early evaluation of some of the music elements was based on the theater I saw the film in. With a sound system that's actually geared for more than explosions, the theme sounds much better.

Call it a double standard, but I like the traditional movie Bond. Allowing for the 3 Billion US Dollars earned by the 20 preceding films, I think it's fair to say that most other people did too. But the producers decided to mess with an otherwise winning formula. It'd be fine as an action film, but it just isn't a true Bond film.
One of the Best Bonds
Michael_Elliott26 February 2008
Casino Royale (2006)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

I'm not much of a fan of James Bond, although I've seen the early Connery films and the first three films with Brosnan. I'm really not in a hurry to see the others but I was somewhat fascinated by this film because I enjoyed Daniel Craig so much in Munich. I'm not sure how Bond fans feel about this film but I personally thought it was very good and certainly more refreshing than those boring films I had seen from Brosnan. I've read a couple reviews that said there wasn't enough action but I thought the film worked perfectly after the rather silly opening. Yes, the stunts were great in the first action piece but it seemed like a deleted scene from a Spider Man movie. After that opening sequence I thought the film really took off, which is mostly due to Craig who I thought was terrific in the role. I could have done without all the chest shots but I guess if I had a chest like him then I'd be showing it off anytime I could. The one problem I did have with the film was Eva Green who I thought was one of the least interesting girls I've seen. I didn't really feel any strong connection between her and Bond and thought the first girl (in the hotel) was better. The poker scene was wonderfully directed and it's not too easy to pull off scenes like this. The ending was also quite nice and thought the closing shots were near perfect and really makes me want to see the next film if they go for brains instead of action like this film did.
2/10
This is not a James Bond movie
dcldan28 June 2007
Now, with Daniel Craig as Bond, James Bond, we are able to see how he fights with a terrorist banker. This time, Bond is more violent as usual (Brosnan refinement is dead) and it has lost all his charisma. Craig (at least in this film) is not Bond, he reminds more the anonymous character of "Transporter" rather than Bond. In addition, Bond, must be a man of action, I can understand spending one hour in a poker match (well, it is well told) but, a Bond movie must end with lots of fireworks, not with about one hour of nothing. I think Daniel Craig can be more brutal way of seeing Bond, but the script of the film was not well done. There is no charismatic villain, it is much longer that it should be, as the ending is never-ending. In addition, there's no feminine erotic views, only Craig in shorts (what is Bond without bond-girls?) in order to make girls happier... It is not that it is an awful movie (it could be much better if shorter, but is viewable), it's the fact that it is not a Bond's movie, just an action one. If you're a purist, probably you'll hate it, if not, it is just a bad movie.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
New Ground, New Space
tedg20 November 2006
We have a new level in cinematic motion.

This movie is in three parts, each part engineered excellently, much more so than the norm.

In this case, the Hollywood system really did give us something cinematic and newly artistic in its way.

The first part consists of an introduction to the world we will inhabit for two and a half hours. It's a few moments in grainy black and white. In any movie, the filmmaker has a challenge in letting us know where to snap our cinematic imaginations to. They have to do that in the first few moments, using cues and shorthand. Its a special challenge for a Bond film because we have come to expect a certain sex as humor, adventure as gadget stance. A certain notion of open space and global movement with cartoonish, bloodless intrigue.

These filmmakers had to overcome that in a few moments, and they did. You immediately know where you need to place your mind with this strong reference to noir plus the notion that it will be diluted. This is followed by the title sequence which has more realistic components overlain on iconic cartoons. The theme is guns shooting hearts, spades and so on. The message is concise: fate, chance, human intervention. This isn't the most amazing introduction I've seen, but you can see that they understood the problem and addressed it with a very clean and direct engineering of the cinematic world.

Part 3 is the main movie. Its good enough, as Bond works up the levels of the organization and escapes many times. I liked the fact that its nor flavored in the sense that a man is pitted against what seems the way the way the world is put together. The one glaring flaw in this part was Eva Green. She was miraculously perfect in "The Dreamers," where her job was to represent the embodiment of desire in the context of counter-culture as adolescent, sex as movie. Allure is a relatively simple act.

Here she has to be a powerful person, intriguing, intense. Willing to deeply go together but with knowledge of her own way. She is supposed to be every bit the equal of Bond and in half of the universe his better. She isn't. In fact, I cannot think of any actress alive that could have pulled this off and still fit within the constraints of the "Bond girl" which implies certain appearance.

But forget all that. The reason to see this is because of the second part. The Bond formula is to have an exciting chase scene at the very beginning. It need have little to do with the main plot, and is there to circumnavigate expectations. If the movie will be heavily dependent on amazing gadgets, you need to display some in this section. In the past, these have been adventurous and clever.

This time they have done something so well I want to send you to the theater just for it. They've broken new ground cinematically I think in how they have put this together. Its a chase sequence, Bond chasing a guy that is a suspected bomber. No cars, airplanes, skis, purely a footrace except for one use of a bulldozer. The action itself is remarkable, with these guys moving in space with such grace. And they readily move in three dimensions, up and through cranes and a building skeleton. Naturally there are explosions and objects moving dangerously. But that by itself is not the magic.

The magic is in how the camera places us, our eyes. The characters move and we move with them, more energetically. Some of the eye positions we find ourselves in are where cameras would ordinarily be: at eye level with a steadycam or jiggly hand-held; in a helicopter, swooping over a crane. Other eye positions have us confabulated in the action, tangled in legs or the swirl of a fight. Yet others are familiar from animated adventures, those few new camera swoops that must be preprogrammed into compositing software. And then there are some new positions that seem to have been selected only because of their oddity. Plus we have mistakes, the eye getting too excited and looking in the wrong place, as if we were pushing ourselves in the chase and occasionally looking about or getting our situation wrong.

And it isn't just where we are, its the pacing of how these are interrelated. We don't have time to shift position, so we are carried along in ALL positions, us in a way being the whole space that they rush through. Us as space. Our eye not as simple sensor of a world but our whole selves redefined as what we can see and blended in a say, 60 foot diameter snake chasing these two guys as mongeese, containing them and threatening them.

Its new space, new territory. I wish it were a whole project that had more purpose than collecting our coins by giving us a rush. But there you are.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
4/10
Double Oh No!!!
rblayer25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw my first James Bond movie as a young teenager during the height of the Cold War, and have been a big fan ever since. Ian Fleming's main character launched an American spy craze that included everything from the sitcom "Get Smart" to "007" cologne. Bond was incredibly handsome, with a dashing British charm that women wanted and men wanted to be like. Sure, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan grew a tad long of tooth and made a film or two more than they should have, but under what rock did they find Daniel Craig? My yardman would look better in a tuxedo, and, could probably act better. Craig reminded me of the school bully who grew up to work as a collection specialist for a loan shark. "Casino Royale" did have some moments of great photography, and Eva Green was breathtaking to behold. But constant fights and chase scenes than ran way too long were constantly interrupted by a most confusing story line. And the ending where Vesper locks herself in an underwater elevator cage to drown was just plain stupid. You would have thought that during one of their many romps, that she'd come to believe that James Bond could save her and her kidnapped boyfriend. I was totally disappointed in the latest in a long line of great films, and sorely missed Q's gadgetry and the dashing womanizing hero of old.
2/10
not a Bond film
fcasnette28 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
75 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this is really a Bruce Willis or Arnie film, not a Bond film at all.

The pre-credit sequence is boring with zero humour or panache in Craig's delivery of the punch line.

Judy Dench is looking old and completely out of place in a film that is supposed to go back to the beginnings of Bond. And we have the oldest cliché in the book of Bond at odds with his superior, blah blah, done in every cop film since the dawn of time.

The Sony product placement is just crass throughout for a Sony/Columbia picture. Is this a movie or an advert? The title song is instantly forgettable with lyrics mumbled.

The cartoon credit sequence is the poorest graphics since Dr No, simply boring with no imagination or wow factor. It looks cheap compared to the great graphics we have come to expect and makes the whole film look cheap compared to greater Cubby Brocolli efforts.

Craig is not debonair, tall, dark or handsome and has no wit or class, totally miscast as Bond. He would be better as the villain's No 2 henchman rather than Bond.

The idea that the world's terrorists depend on a legitimate casino game to fund their activities is as ludicrous as Moonraker's laser guns or Die Another's invisible car, but this is the whole plot of the film.

There are 3 good action sequences and the rest is FAR too long. The love story bit dialogue between Bond and Vesper particularly is yawn inducing with no chemistry between the actors on screen, and Vesper's suicide at the end particularly contrived and unbelievable. The whole end sequence of destroying a Venician building shows no imagination and is obviously just tagged on as an afterthought.

In conclusion it's just another formula action film with none of the class and features that make a good Bond film. The hero could have been any cop/agent/private investigator so the whole has none of the distinctive and memorable scenes that always went into a Bond film.

A big disappointment.
7/10
Failing upwards
Streetwolf20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay so here's my 2 cents. If we go back to Goldeneye we learn that M (Judy Dench) hadn't been head of MI6 for that long since Bond (Pierce Brosnan you are missed) mentions that her predecessor kept some cognac... hinting that since he last had a drink in that office there was another M in charge... which couldn't have been that long ago. With that in mind, how is it we jump back in time to the beginning of when Bond became a 00 agent and with Judy Dench still playing the part? Sean Connery was the first, George Lazenby was an accident, a total mistake, Roger Moore was the wimp and a gentleman. Timothy Dalton played the cold-hearted Bond, who wasn't a gentleman, but an agent who wanted the job to be over and done with, he was good. And then we have Pierce Brosnan, the gorgeous, charming gentleman that not only could get the job done, he got it done with style, finesse and he even got the girl in the end. Yes, he was perfect, perfect as Bond and simply the perfect man altogether. Now as for Daniel Craig... He did an okay job of playing a cold version of Bond, but that's already been done by Timothy Dalton. He couldn't charm anyone even if he paid them, he does NOT look good in a suit, and by smashing the Aston Martin he is no gentleman... And he's blonde. His body is too big for his head, or his head is to small for his body, whichever way, he is not the right Bond. I heard somewhere that there was this whole thing about how he emerged out of the water and the scene wasn't supposed to be in the movie, but since all the females (and males) were gasping because of his torso, the scene stayed in. I've seen better. Yes there was that freaky scene where he is tortured by getting his jewels smashed in a few times, and then he just passed out. He didn't have his super stunning tooth (or whatever. Since he was naked... he could have had a secret weapon attached to his nipple) that could knock anyone out for hours and his trusty watch to cut him loose, no... there was no O, P, Q or R branch that could save him. And then there was the Ford Focus.. granted it was car of the year some years ago, but seriously, if I wanted to see a Ford I would have just gone to the showroom! I wanted to see the amazing sports cars, this was a James Bond movie, super agent with all the cool gadgets that one can hope for and the super cars one can only hope to be in the proximity of. That's my rant. I give this movie a 1/10. Not near as interesting as any of the other James Bond movies... including never say never again.
1/10
This isn't a bond film
otterman6222 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
41 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a big Bond fan, and this is the first one that I haven't seen at the cinema since Diamonds are Forever in 1971. I saw the DVD yesterday and what a disappointment.

Firstly the good stuff, the locations are original, which is not easy when the franchise has been going round the world for 40+ years, and the photography is excellent ( the cranes against the ocean during the chase, the colours of the sites around lake como)and Judi Dench is always excellent..... and that's pretty much it.

Now the list of moans Daniel Craig is not my idea of Bond, the publicity machine seems to have gone into overdrive about Mr Craig, but nobody that i know who has personally seen the film liked it or him. Craig at times looks more like a down and out rather than a suave agent. He was good in Layer Cake but has zero charisma in this The basic plot (Bond takes on financier for international terrorism) is a good start but has numerous stupid ideas that spoil it for example why would Bond break into M's flat rather than just talk to her in her office? The chronology of the film is all wrong, it clearly shows it's set in 2006 but disregards all his other background, for me this didn't work. the film then drifts off into the overlong card game, with the ridiculous defibrillator scene The villain is rubbish - his "gadget" is an asthma inhaler! my mum could take him out and she's 81! Bond is fooled by everyone, the women, the villain, the bloke who is meant to be helping him, he has to rescued by the bad guys! he gets beaten up loads as well and he gets tortured, and in an embarrassing way, Connery would have bitten through the ropes and killed the guy with the chair! The girls aren't memorable enough some of the lines are pathetic, one is about "if all that was left of you was your hat(?) and your little finger".....embarrassing. Personally I want to go to see escapist Bond, charming the ladies, killing the baddies, always being one step ahead, and always having something witty to say. If I wanted the so called depressing realism I'd look in the mirror. Bottom Line ( no pun intended after the reference to the torture scene)if you didn't have Judi Dench in this, it could pass as just another Bourne/transporter/crank type of average action movie. This is a poor addition to the Bond series. Very disappointing.I hope that they ensure the people who wrote this, don't have anything to do with the next one.
8/10
New Bond in a good action flick
The_Void21 November 2006
I can't say I'm a fan of James Bond films - I've seen them all (except the original spoof 'Casino Royale'), and Goldfinger is the only film that I rate highly; but I was interested in seeing this one for the fact that there's a new Bond, and he's so different from all those who have gone before. Director Martin Campbell is no stranger to making Bond films with a new lead as he was the man that helmed the well-received Pierce Brosnan debut Goldeneye back in 1995. This one, however, is wildly different from the rest for reasons other than just the new Bond - as we have an unfortunate lack of gadgets, as well as an overall darker and more serious tone. The plot line isn't the most megalomaniacal of the series, and simply focuses on Le Chiffre; a terrorist accountant with a talent for playing poker. He decides to set up a high stakes poker game in Montenegro after his other plan was thwarted by MI6's newest agent, James Bond. Coincidentally, Bond happens to be the best poker player in the organisation and so the government funds his ten million dollar entrance fee...but he has to win, otherwise Britain will be directly funding terrorism!

Being a talented poker player myself, I was a little worried that the film may focus on the turgid 'stud' form of poker; but fortunately, it's the more exciting Texas Hold'Em that takes centre stage. The film doesn't focus too much on poker, but what we do get is completely overblown; along with the rest of the film. Of course, I'd be complaining more if it wasn't; and Martin Campbell provides a good mix of big stunts and smaller one on one fights. The real star of the show is, of course, the new Bond; and Daniel Craig does a really good job in the central role. The James Bond series really needed some new life injected into it, and Craig adequately provides that. He is joined by the stunningly sexy Eva Green who takes the 'Bond Girl' role, while Mads Mikkelsen is a distinctive baddie and the film is rounded off by Judy Dench and Italian actor Giancarlo Giannini, who starred in the classic Giallo 'Black Belly of the Tarantula' with no less than three Bond girls! Overall, Casino Royale is certainly an enjoyable slice of celluloid, but despite its overblown emotional scenes - that's all it is. But even so, it would be difficult to get bored during this film, and it gets a thumbs up for that reason.
1/10
if it ain't broke - don't fix it!
zigurusejin8 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
65 out of 131 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
for the first time James Bond has a strong homo-erotic appeal - you see a lot more male than female nakedness, and then there is, of course, the gay sadomasochistic torture scene where the naked "Bond" has his genitals whipped by a male villain. Where most previous Bonds' main strengths were charm and elegance - this one's a testosterone junkie - a gym locker-room wet dream - and not much else! I really don't mind - but it's not what I expect and it doesn't appeal to me! The screenplay is extremely poor and too much of it doesn't work or doesn't make any sense at all - what was supposed to be inside the metal briefcase near the end in Venice - 10 million in cash?! I don't really mind if the plot is unrealistic - but then it should be funny through exaggeration or parody - which this one certainly isn't! Looks like the makers of this one couldn't quite make up their minds as to what they're trying to do - so in the end they left some of the classic elements (crane chase, airport incident) but not enough to call it an 007 film!
10/10
My name is Bond, James Bond!
Kazombie19 November 2006
I saw this movie yesterday with very high expectations and honestly, I haven't been this pleased with a movie since "The Departed. All the action sequences are somehow "believeable". Don't get me wrong, this is still a James Bond movie, but minus the ridiculous "invisible cars" and the likes. This is by far the most realistic portrayal of Bond.

Despite the long runtime of this movie, you will still be hoping for more. The fights are literally bone crunching and the one liners are better than ever.

Hands down the best James Bond film in my opinion. This Bond is here to stay and he's got the balls to prove it!
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Some of the best and most spectacular stunt-work I've seen in a long time.
Boba_Fett113826 November 2006
Before this movie Superman 'returned', Batman 'began' and now it's James Bond turn to get a complete 21th century make-over. The character is revised and the makers begin with this movie from scratch, with showing Bond on his very first mission. We learn more about the character, such as why he threats women like he does. Bond in this movie is still a rough diamond that needs polishing. He doesn't respect his boss (M) and is very self-centered and uncontrolled in his actions and emotions. It shows Bond as a more humane and realistic character.

I wasn't unhappy with the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies (even though "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World Is Not Enough" weren't exactly the greatest), so for me it wasn't really needed to revise the character and give the series a complete make-over. Needless to say I was quite reluctant about this movie at first. That however ended after seeing the first trailer of the movie. Bond seemed to go back to its basics and the character seemed so much more interesting. My biggest complaint about the Brosnan Bond movies always had been that they featured to many (needless) SFX and massive big gun fights. I had always preferred the good old fashioned fist fights from the earlier Bond movies. This movie surely spoiled me with that! The action was raw, bold and straight-forward and Bond used his fists more than his gun

The action is definitely one of the best I've seen in a long time. I already knew that Martin Campbell was a great action director, with movies such as "The Mask of Zorro", "No Escape" and the other Bond movie "GoldenEye" behind his name. But the action in this movie surely surpasses his other work. The stunts are absolutely phenomenal and the action is brought well to the screen, also thanks to the editing from action movie specialist Stuart Baird. The action was filmed realistic, rather than just big and spectacular. In a way it made the action more intense and exciting to follow.

Daniel Craig also proofs with this movie that he can play a great action hero. Step aside Ethan Hunt and Jason Bourne, Daniel Craig as James Bond is the new kid on the block and he is great! He doesn't only handle the action well and convincing but also the Bond character. He makes the character more humane with emotions and shows that Bond can still be seriously wounded and emotionally touched. So he makes the action as well as the emotions work out. A real accomplishment, that not just every actor would had succeeded in. It shows that Daniel Craig is the perfect man to revise the character and form the base for later Bond movies and Bond actors as well. Because after this movie I'm sure of it; Bond movies will continue to be made for at least the next 25 years and the series is far from dried up. The cast and crew really puts some new- and interesting life into the series. Craig succeeded in what Timothy Dalton tried to achieve with the Bond character and movies. (But please note that I for one really liked the Dalton Bond and movies though.)

The rest of the cast is also good. The movie is well cast, rather than just putting some big names in it. Eva Green is a good and different sort of Bond girl and Mads Mikkelsen who already was a big star in Denmark now also introduces himself to the rest of the world, as the main villain of this movie.

The movie isn't as casino game focused as the title and plot outline might suggest. Above all "Casino Royale" is still an action movie, rather than just a character-thriller with action in it.

The movie is rather simple written with a simple story but than again, stories never really had been a big requirement for any James Bond movie. Still it doesn't make the characters all work out as effective as they could had been and it makes the movie also drag at points. There are some moments in the movie in between the action sequences in which nothing is really happening. It makes the movie sometimes unnecessary slow and unnecessary uninteresting. If I look at this movie purely as an action movie, it isn't the best one around. If you look at this movie as a part of the James Bond series, it's definitely one of the better ones. It explains why I can't really rate this movie any higher than an 7 out of 10. Technically the movie is too lacking in story-flow, plot and characters to be considered a perfect one, even for action movie standards. Still I'm enthusiastic about this movie and can recommended to everyone, even if you aren't really familiar with any of the other Bond movies. This is the perfect movie to get (re)introduced to the character.

This movie lays a good foundation for later 'new' James Bond movies and I'm convinced of it that the movies, just like Daniel Craig as the character, will only get better and more like the 'old' Bond movies (so with gadgets, more humor, more sex etc.) but still in the same new and more serious 'realistic' approach of the character and the movie in general.

Bond is dead, long life Bond!

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
1/10
How can you call this a BOND movie!!!?
santiagocii27 April 2008
This must have been the worst BOND movie ever made. If we change the title and call it something else..and not ever mentioned there was a spy and a Bond 007 here, then.. perhaps we can say we watched an "interesting" action movie..but a JAMES BOND?? I really can't believe how people call this guy the best James Bond actor ever!? What's going on? All of the sudden the world just forgot what a Bond character suppose to be like? Where is the Charm? the wits? Is it because now we like to see damn brute men killing like gangster more than anything else? wrong!!! James Bond is the only gentleman who could kill his enemies with courtesy!!! if you don't understand that.. then you don't understand anything. WORLD... WAKE UP!!!! CRITICS!!??? WAKE UP!!! I am SO disappointed about reading the positive reviews... ONE THING IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.... with this movie WE HAVE KILLED THE ICON OF JAMES BOND for ever and this is indisputable.
34 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointing
stronald16 March 2007
This is certainly not a James Bond movie. I did my best to find a piece of James bond in Craig, but there was nothing there. There was a very bold man instead, hungry to kill. The story is also very weak and fragmented.

The only gadget our James Bond had here was a cell phone! WOOOOW! There was absolutely no chemistry between "Bond" and the girl. At a certain point it looks like the movie is ending and then somebody said, "the movie should be much longer!". And then they paste another half hour or so. Also to me, the action scenes seems forced into the script.

This is just an average action movie. I really hope that there will be James Bond movies in the future, with the ingredients that qualifies it so.
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Very ordinary and does dishonor to the Bond franchise.
mattrochman9 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well it appears that the Bond film makers went horribly wrong with this one and I have grave concerns about subsequent bonds. There are many things wrong, minor and major, including:

INTRO I appreciate we are "at the beginning" of the bond saga. But that's no reason to abandon the tradition opening and then insert it at the point of his first kill. I'm sure it sounded good on paper, but was an early indication that the Bond formula (that we never seem to get tired of!) was going to be varied.

OPENING CREDITS I don't mind a bit of variation, but I prefer silhouettes of naked women doing gymnastics. This one looked like it was made with a computer from the 70s and the title song was less than memorable.

DANIEL CRAIG That guy should never play bond again... ever. He is wooden, lifeless and completely lacks the suave and cheekiness of the other Bonds. Pierce Brosnan didn't get it right until the second Bond, but even in Goldeneye, he seemed to have the makings of a good Bond. With Craig, I struggle to see how they'll turn it around and make him a Bond we will all love.

THE LOVE STORY Oh please! This got so schmaltzy in parts that I completely forgot that I was actually watching a Bond. To make matters worse, I didn't feel that the chemistry between them was convincing. When it become really serious, it became eye-rolling.

THE PLOT Well there really wasn't much of a plot at all. I know the "destroy the world or some part thereof" plots have been done to death, but this was simply about beating a terrorist in a card game to starve him of money and therefore force him to talk to save his skin. Butif Bond loses, they (MI6) will effectively be "financing terrorism". Again, may have looked good on paper - one of those "the stakes couldn't be higher" type deals - but in the end, it didn't deliver. Throw in a few double crosses to teach bond that he can't trust anyone... and that's about as complicated as the story gets.

GADGETS Where were they? The most complicated thing in the whole film was (a) the defibrillator in the car and (b) going through another persons mobile phone to read their sms's. Oh yes - we had him using his laptop on a boat, but even I can do that these days. As per usual, there was no shortage of product placement.

FEW STUPID MISTAKES I have a word limit so I won't do a list here. But there were plenty of them. Here is one: he dives into the water to get her out of the elevator with her phone in his pocket. That model is not water proof, but works perfectly minutes later (after it's been 50 feet under water for 3 minutes or so). And the fact that it still worked was crucial to the ending. Small errors here and there and not everyone would catch them, but they appear throughout. Needless to say that if they are big on product placement, they shouldn't pass off a non-water proof phone as water proof.

COMEDY Where is the cheeky bond with double entrandes, dry British humour and sharp whit? I think the problem is that Bond is portrayed as too much of a destructive arrogant evil bastard rather than a sly & smooth, yet deadly secret agent. Again - not convinced that Craig can pull this off in subsequent Bonds.

THE POKER GAME Here we go. Well I do play poker myself. So I can confirm that the hands that came up in the game were ridiculous - especially the last one. You could play the game for 20 years and never get a hand where four players have a flush, a full house, a bigger full house and a straight flush between them. Very unrealistic, but I won't sit around poking holes in that too much because it is a movie after all.

M: For some reason, I felt Judi Dench looked almost...... uncomfortable in this film. She was given a bigger role that usual and carried the same stern attitude she has in other bonds, but I think she was better suited playing off Brosnan. Something was wrong in this one. Perhaps the whole affair was all too serious and mean spirited for her liking. Or perhaps she simply can't work well with Craig (which doesn't surprise me).

CONCLUSION I felt that this had all the tools of the bond, but just wasn't one. We had the Aston Martin, a dangerous villain, bond was able to get himself out of any situation, fast action, casinos, cocktails and beautiful women dancing around all over the place (though in my view, 95% of them looked extremely anorexic to me). But despite many of the fundamentals making an appearance, I just didn't feel like I was watching a bond at all. This could have been just a simple stand-alone spy movie (and an ordinary one at that).

This does dishonor to the bond franchise, as does Daniel Craig. At times, I felt that they tried to make the action, the love story and the game take centre stage and Craig was there just working through the script, whereas, in other bonds, it is James Bond who takes centre stage the whole way through. The bottom line is that the film just didn't come together and didn't ring true as a Bond.

Even Die Another Day was a pretty decent Bond. But this one took a major wrong turn with a pointless, shallow plot that only marginally unfolded in the closing 10 minutes. It was way too long and I lost interest in parts. There was a fairly evil undertone to Bond as well which I wasn't comfortable with.

Probably the worst bond to date.
6/10
Is this the beginning of the end for Bond?
vinsond2117 November 2006
Welcome to the new James Bond, who enters the franchise through the first book of the adventures of the British superspy by Ian Fleming. Sadly, that's about as exciting as it gets. The filmmakers seem to be trying to reinvent Bond according to the Jason Bourne mold, which is fine. Except they left out the fun aspect of the earlier Bonds, while the pace here is not as consistently thrilling as what you get in the Bourne series. I miss Goldfinger, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and The Spy Who Loved Me, and Die Another Day, and even The Living Daylights. I miss the Bond girls with charisma like Ursula and Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg and Jill St John and Jane Seymour and Barbara Bach, to name some. I miss the larger-than-life villains, and i even miss Q and Moneypenny. Thank goodness Dame Judi is still around to save the day as M. Daniel Craig is a potentially good Bond, but he needs better material to work with. The story here is lame, and it's not helped by the lack of more memorable characters to make up the fun factor at least. In the Jason Bourne series, the villains are low-key too, but at least the movies pulsate with gripping action. Here, the action sequences come in spurts, and there are more witty one-liners from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie than one would find here. Sorry for having to make comparisons like this, but i am just trying to comment within the context of the movie's genre. While one does not wish for more of the same done-to-death formula exhibited by some of the earlier Bonds, the next Bond movie with Daniel Craig again needs to have better plot and character development, with the former being more involving and the latter being more engaging. Otherwise, this new start may just spell the beginning of the end for this lucrative franchise.
Good action film? Yes. Good Bond film? NO.
Heimpi30 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film was awful. Firstly, Daniel Craig is a pathetic Bond. In the end he was actually willing to resign for a girl. James Bond would NEVER do that. He would never fall in love, I know that for a fact. Secondly, there are no gadgets in the film either. I expected there to be many more. The movie also dragged on for way too long, and it didn't get any more interesting either. It was boring from the first second, and it stayed that way until the end. From the first five minutes I was already begging for it to finish.

The story is extremely confusing and very difficult to follow, and the romance between Bond and Vesper seemed ridiculous because there was no chemistry between them at all.

Daniel Craig is not the James Bond I know, he's an impostor. Blond, unattractive, and most importantly he's weak and screams when he's being tortured, he doesn't try to escape in an ingenious way. And he doesn't give a damn about how he wants his Martini!

Casino Royale is a good action film in itself, but it is most definitely NOT a Bond film. If they hadn't tried to make it as one, it would have been great. It really is a shame.

I really don't see what all the fuss about this film is about. I wouldn't waste my time or my money with this.
8/10
A Bond who has fallen from the family tree ...
Flower_of_the_Lily15 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Right from the start, it is evident that the James Bond making his debut in 'Casino Royale' bears small, if any, resemblance to his predecessors. Gone are the gadgets, the gimmicks, the one-liners and general good-natured silliness. James Bond, shortly to receive the fateful designation of 007, as portrayed by Daniel Craig, is brutal (see the very violent pre-credits fight), ruthless, and regards killing as an everyday activity that does not impinge upon himself as a person. Whereas Brosnan's Bond had the glimmerings of a sense of honour ("I usually hate killing an unarmed man, cold-blooded murder is a filthy business" he utters in 'The World is Not Enough') and even sometimes of compassion, Daniel Craig as Bond is the man who would shoot you in the head without even pausing to look you in the eye.

Indeed, (almost) everything about this whole film is re-invented - okay, they've kept the stunning women, beautiful locations, brilliant action sequences (the standout being a chase across a building site that induces vertigo even when sitting safely in a cinema seat) and the scene-stealing performance from Judi Dench as M, but everything else is fresh and new. This is Bond re-invented from the ground up.

Which is probably a good thing. Although the Bond franchise slid a bit off track with Pierce Brosnan's last film, the general consensus is he was the best since Connery and would have been a tough act to follow had the original formula been stuck to. Daniel Craig on the other hand hasn't got so much of a shadow to step out from, and this can only work to his advantage when his most eloquent acting is done minus words - as aforementioned, Bond's usual quips are noticeable by their absence and only a little sparring with the more than equal-to-the-task Vesper Lynd hints at Bond's liking for double entendres.

So, on to the biggest question of them all - is Craig a Bond to beat them all or a trouble-oh seven? Call me a wimp if you will, but I'm going to reserve judgement. Craig is James Bond in this film through sheer force of will - he is Bond because everyone in the film just BELIEVES he is so much. You can almost feel the director and the camera willing him to become the 007 of Ian Fleming's imagination. Whether or not Craig can inhabit the role as Connery or Brosnan did and make it his own it still up for debate - but then this is only his first outing. He could be fantastic - emphasis on the COULD.

But whether or not he is Bond, Craig is a terrific action hero, leaping from cranes, shooting bad guys and generally wrecking havoc in the name of Queen and Country. Mads Mikkelson does himself proud as Le Chiffre, a baddie so bad he weeps blood. Eva Green is suitably luminous as Vesper Lynd, a woman who entrances even the stony-hearted 007, and the action is glorious enough to plug the holes in a flimsy plot. Oh, and did I mention Judi Dench rocks as M? If this is Bond reborn, it's good to see he's retained just a few things from his previous life.
5/10
Well done action movie, but not James Bond
Mccadoo27 November 2006
Let me begin by saying that I'm not a huge James Bond fan, I have enjoyed the movies over the years and have seen all of them but I don't wait breathlessly for the next installment in the series to be released. In my opinion Sean Connery WAS James Bond and after him; Peirce Brosnan (to which my g.f., who is a huge fan, agrees. I had to use the jaws of life to get her off of Brosnan's statue at Madame Tussauds in London last year).

We saw Casino Royal over the weekend and both of us walked away with the same opinion; it was a very well done action movie but it was not a James Bond movie. And yes, I've read some of the novels and I understand how they have always differed from the movies but that doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that this Bond has blond hair and isn't as suave as those that came before him. That's not what I'm talking about.

What has always set the Bond movies apart from all others was their style. Yes, at times they were almost cartoonish and they weren't at all realistic but that didn't matter either. You went to see a James Bond movie for the incredible action, the gadgets, the women, and a very suave, very cool, very English James Bond. It was escapism at it's highest level. The Bond films were unique in that style, often imitated but never successfully. Pierce Brosnan embodied exactly what the movie James Bond always has been and always should be. Just as Damon was born to play Jason Bourne, he was born to play James Bond.

We already have plenty of action movies and action movie series and action movie stars, from Ethan Hunt to Jason Bourne, the last thing we need is another one. Mr. Craig did a great job in this movie, better than Cruise's Ethan Hunt in his last outing and almost as good as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne in both movies, but that doesn't matter either.

This movie is doing well but I think a lot of that is curiosity, as I said, my g.f. is a die hard James Bond fan and she wanted to see it, after seeing it she stated in no uncertain terms that Craig is not James Bond, this was not a James Bond movie and she'll pass on the next movie. I think that may be the case with a lot of people.

As I've said, this movie was very well done and I enjoyed it but that just doesn't matter because, as I've also said, we already have plenty of run of the mill action films, James Bond was always different, he was above all that.

Why those behind this franchise would want to toss that cache, that mystique away and lower themselves into the already crowded genre of gritty action movies is a mystery to me. I think they may live to regret it.
1/10
Indicative of the downfall of Western civilisation
harryplinkett1421 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is utter rubbish, both in its own right and as a James Bond film.

I do not even see a proper plot here. All we see are episodes that are stitched together, but do not result in a story that is being told. The film ends with a confusing anti-climax and the villain is killed off before he even managed to do any real harm, in a scene where he didn't fight back at all. It's like introducing a killer whom we have never seen before to kill Goldfinger whole he is reading his newspapers. That alone tells you just how incompetent the writers are.

But then we have the character of Bond and his 'romance' that is on the level of those cheap novels women masturbate to. It is complete rubbish.

And what about Bond himself and his colleagues? Oh, he is now an emo that takes long showers to fight his depression. He works for what looks like his grandmother (???) and the director seems to think he should be turned into an object of desire for the homosexual section of the audience.

Everything about this film is awkward, and demonstrates the destruction of masculinity, the devastating impact of feminism and political correctness, and the general twisted state of our civilisation.

By the way, half the action scenes are filmed in the shaky cam + 'ten cuts a second' mode, so you won't have a clue what is going on in them anyway. And if that's not enough to alienate you, there are plenty of poorly executed love scenes. If you on top of that have no interest in cards, you will be seriously bored - half the film is Bond playing cards in a casino.

As for Bond's famous one-liners: there are none.

Utter rubbish. Zero stars.
1/10
no James Bond
escamillio12 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
45 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thsi film is no James Bond film at all. It misses all the charme, elegance and class of the series and is merely another action film of the kind of Lethal Weapon or 24. It was boring and unsatisfying, and Daniel Craig is just miscast. I am a big fan of the James Bond films, but I was very disappointed in this one. Why were they trying to destroy the myth of James Bond? He never war a cold hearted, brutal killer. Her usually got the girl and not got all of them killed. He was charming and a gentleman of subtle wit. And he was good looking. Somehow all of that was missing in this film. And why on earth was this about Bond besoming 007, if the setting was nowadays? Surely it should have taken place in the 60ies? Whoever tried to reinvent Bond in this film ruined it for me.
10/10
Finally a good "Real" Bond!
Reef-Shark1 April 2009
Casino Royale is a Bond film that finally manages to pull of the "real" style correctly. There have been admirable efforts such as On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and the Timothy Dalton films, but none have quite pulled it off right. This is the 21st film in the "never-ending" franchise and also introduces us to our sixth actor to play Bond and the first to be based directly on Ian Fleming's initial novel, Casino Royale (excluding the 60s comedy film).

Martin Campbell, who also directed one of my favorite 007 adventures in 1995, GoldenEye, returns to the director's chair to introduce us to yet another Bond-actor. This is the most real James Bond to date and is very believable portrayal filled with some of the best camera work you'll ever witness. It comes across as real, but it also keep to classic Bond roots by including cars, beautiful women, and even some more realistic gadgets, such as a tracking device inserted within his vein and a few others kept handy within the glove box of his Aston Martin. He may not wield a laser wristwatch, but he gets the job done.

The action sequences in this film are perhaps the most intense to be put into any Bond film and shall keep you on the edge of your seat, because this may be the one film where you actually feel like James Bond is in danger. All previous films you knew that "Hey, this is James Bond. He'll make it." This one you can still think that while watching, but you certainly worry more for the title character than you have in the previous entries.

Daniel Craig does well as the title character, and is very believable as a young James Bond starting his career. He walks as if he has a chip on his shoulder and you can tell this is the angriest Bond to date. He has yet to transform into the coolheaded Bond seen in Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, and he shows it in every way. This Bond hasn't even grown accustomed to wearing a suit! But he is however a good gambler and enjoys himself some cocktails.

Judi Dench returns as M, the head of MI6. Dench who first took the role (being the first woman in the role) in the Brosnan film GoldenEye has always played a good character, but this time around she comes across as being a different type of M. This time she seems more like a worried-parent character, who treats Bond as though he is a child, because she knows he is not the Bond of legend at this point, and he needs guidance or he shall never turn into the coolheaded super agent that we all know and love.

This is one of the best entries in the James Bond franchise, there is no denying that, but I do worry of how the Craig run will end. After Campbell left Brosnan he got pulled down by scripts that relied too heavily one gadgets and comic one-liners, and now I fear that Craig may end up being weighed down from becoming overly serious (see: Quantum of Solace). We must remember that Bond is a basically a comic-book type hero who is basically a superhero who wears a suit instead of a costume.

Regardless of whether or not Craig's run ends on a good or bad note Casino Royale shall easily remain one of the best James Bond films ever made. Campbell should stop running off and stick to Bond, because it seems things start to go badly when he leaves his Bond actor in the hands of the sponsors.
6/10
"But you yourself are nothing so divine. Just next in line "
majikstl20 November 2006
You don't review James Bond movies, you evaluate them, rate them according to how well they meet expectations. There are certain things one has come to expect, even demand of a Bond film and each individual effort either delivers or it doesn't. So, here are ten elements that make a Bond film a Bond film and how the remake of CASINO ROYALE rates on a scale of 1 to 10:

Title: CASINO ROYALE: At least it suggests class, which oddly is the one thing this film seems to be trying to avoid. 7 points.

Pre-Credit Teaser: The first wrinkle in this so-called reboot of the series is that it begins in black-and-white. Whether intended as an homage to the 50s TV version of the story or just a clumsy reference to THE WIZARD OF OZ, the monochromatic flashback is hardly original. Since the whole film is essentially a flashback, the gimmick here seems self-consciously self-important. 5 points.

Opening Credits: Daniel Kleinman foregoes the traditional optical tricks and gaudy montages and actually goes retro with an animated opening. Cleverly using a gambling motif, he turns crosshairs into roulette wheels, spades into lethal weapons and hearts into puddles of blood, equating the spy game with a game of skill and chance. Really nice. 10 points.

Theme Song: Paradoxically it is entitled "You Know My Name," odd since this is supposed to be Bond before he was a legend. Chris Cornell's opening theme provides a strong beat but the lyrics are rambling nonsense ("When the storm arrives, would you be seen with me? By the merciless eyes of deceit?" Huh?). Still, if it were performed in the seductive tones of the best Bond ballads (Shirley Bassey, where are you?), rather than Cornell's blaring screech, it might have been better. 6 point.

"Bond, James Bond": Supposedly the youngest actor to play Bond, Daniel Craig nonetheless looks older than either Connery or Moore in their final Bond epics. There is just something unpleasant about Craig's appearance, which makes his 007 neither likable nor sympathetic nor even particularly memorable. Craig is stiff and cold and prone to mumbling in monotones. Unfortunately, that seems to be just what the filmmakers wanted. Go figure. But, there is the hint that the style, charm and wit will materialize in future adventures. God, I hope so. We'll take a gamble and advance him 4 points.

Bond Babes: As Vesper Lynd, Eva Green certainly isn't the voluptuous temptress that Ursula Andress created in the 1967 spoof, but instead gives us a character who is smart, witty and beautiful in a realistic way. Indeed, she hardly deserves to be classified as a mere "Bond Girl." But, the film traps her in an unbelievable plot twist and an even more unbelievable romance with Bond. But you can't blame Green, she's the best thing about the film. 10 points.

Bond Villain: It would seem the strongest qualification for Mads Mikkelsen being the villainous LeChiffre is that he is even less attractive than Craig. Not that it matters, since the problem is that he does nothing with the character. In fairness, the role was played previously by Peter Lorre (in the 1954 TV play) and Orson Welles (in the 1967 spoof) and they really didn't do much with the character either. But, at least, they were Peter Lorre and Orson Welles. But then, the character is basically an accountant with a gambling problem and that isn't much to build on. Mikkelsen's LeChiffre cries blood and apparently has asthma... and that is about it. 4 points.

Bond Baddies: Thugs and terrorists seem to be around every corner and fights break out at regular intervals, but they all have a generic quality and are totally forgettable. 0 points.

Sinister Plot: LeChiffre is the moneyhandler for the bad guys (this time terrorists rather than the Soviets) and his gambling habit prompts him to foolishly borrow funds from his clients, who aren't happy when he loses big and can't reimburse. Thus he faces off with Bond over the poker table to win enough to cover his debts before he is eliminated. It is a very silly plot and yet possibly a clever metaphor for the way governments gamble and bluff their way through diplomacy. Still, if Bond wants LeChiffre dead, why doesn't he just shoot him? 6 points.

Production values: For all the jabbering about introducing a new sense of realism into the series, the extravagant stunts are just as ridiculous as ever. But removing the humor from the story doesn't make it serious and denying the self-awareness that the humor exists is not realism. Once more we are getting a comic book farce that doesn't have the good grace to be honest about its absurdity. 5 points.

Bonus Points: One of the more annoying features of the last few Bonds has been Judi Dench as "M." Dame Judi opted to play the bureaucrat as stern, petty, condescending and just plain rude, berating James at every turn. And though they have given the boot to "Q" and Moneypenny, they opted to instead reboot Dench's insufferable "M" into a kinder, gentler despot. Her "M" is still a bully, but she seems to have some unexplained respect for the new Bond, even though he is ruthless and at times incompetent. 5 points for giving Dench a more complex role, minus 5 points for the inconsistency.

Summary: I fail to see the point of all the hullabaloo about this being a rebirth of Bond. Take away the five minutes spent on James earning his 007 status and everything else is the same old same old.. With its accent on violence and sadism, the tone is more Tarantino than Playboy, but that is how the series has been evolving -- for worse more than better -- for the last two decades.

Bond-o-meter Rating: 57 points out of 100
1/10
Oh my god - unbelievable piece of garbage!
frank-glinski5 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
82 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Where to start? I don't know.., really! But after the "fabulous" black&white "pre title-sequence" (yawn) the newly styled opener came up I was like "okay, let's leave the theater", we didn't, I suffered through some of the worst, 2+ hours of my poor little life. anyway, I don't want to make this too long because this one doesn't deserve it: I just purely hated it, it's not James it's the Broccoli-Clan trying to stay in the cash-flow, the "we tried to modernize the old Bond"-kind of cash-flow. When I saw the first wigged stuntman on the cranes it was really over - don't put money in this, please - it's garbage - sorry lovers!
don't believe the hype..its far too long
sammyb27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
25 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
after all the controversy surrounding the reboot and the casting of Daniel Craig it comes as a surprise that Casino Royale is such an unmemorable movie.

It begins well with a very nice black and white and( after a woeful title song)has a spirited free running chase.

Unfortunately after this it all goes wrong. The pacing is slow, the action non-existent and Mads Mikkelson is the blandest Bond villain ever..in fact a couple of times I couldn't understand what he was saying.

Eva Green should have been a good Bond girl but is merely a repetitive damsel in distress,the photography is mediocre and it all looks like a Sony commercial.

To those like myself who don't play poker the poker scenes are slow torture and the torture scene is unintentionally hilarious.

David Arnold's score is his best yet but that is enough to save this bomb.
4/10
The very truth about Casino Royal
miro-622 November 2006
People who rates this movie just 1 is unfair, they like the traditional Bond and are too tough with this one. People rating this movie 10 are for sure people working for the production company. The very truth is what follows. Daniel Craig is a cool actor but is very wrong for James Bond. Bond is a classy man, Craig is a tacky and ordinary guy. While he is wearing a tuxedo he looks like a restaurant maitre. Bond must look like an English man and Craig looks like a former Yugoslav soldier. When a couple of years ago the production company indicated Daniel Craig as the new Bond we all did not like him, later they pushed him so much and showed us surveys where it looks that 70% of the people like Craig more than Brosnam and step by step we all accepted Craig as a new possibility. But let's talk about the movie. At the beginning Casino Royal starts with a great long scene where Bond pursuits, running,a black very athletic guy and that is the best scene of the movie. Later just boring. If you liked the traditional Bonds this movie is not for you. It does not even look as another Bond movie. The ambiance and the cinematography seems more similar to horror movies like "Saw". In this movie Bond does not get any gadget or technology, never uses alternative vehicles (fast boats, wave runners, bikes ecc.,nothing). Craig is in better shape than the prior Bonds but the acting...mmmmmm, for sure he will not receive an Oscar for his performance. The scheme of this movie is exactly the traditional scheme: it stars with an action scene, later nothing cool happens for 100 minutes and it ends with a short action scene. In the meanwhile it is boring and visually ugly. It is a completely new way to shoot a Bond movie, it is more actual but maybe it was better give to this movie a title like: "The adventure of an eastern spy" and show that to another target. I don't think that this movie will be loved by Bond's fans.The real disaster is the section make up, costumes, hairdressing. Those particulars are so vulgar and ugly to make us watching ugly even Eva Green who is, on the opposite, very very very beautiful (did you see "The dreamers" or "Kingdom of heaven"?). Bond's shirts can make Sears shirts looking classy and elegant. Real rate is 4. The director, Martin Campbell, who is the same of "The legend of Zorro", "Vertical limit" and other movies which never reached the rate 6 on IMDb, never has been a great one and, at 66 years old, wants to give a modern dress to this movie, but for doing that you must be 35. Go if you are curious but don't expect anything really good.
3/10
Another modern Bond let-down.
paulclaassen3 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Somtimes, it seems, film makers (especially American) think they can shove whatever they want down our throats and we're going to swallow! Such is the case with 'Casino Royale' (or any other James Bond film for that matter). Isn't it amazing how Bond can walk into any place on earth and know exactly where to find what he is looking for?? In Casino Royale he simply waltzes into a 5-Star hotel's UNMANNED security room, easily finds a tape he's looking for and then finds what's he's looking for on the tape within seconds. Seriously?!? And they expect be to believe $120million can easily be withdrawn in cash (mind you!) WITHOUT any security measurements, and without the account holder present??? Bond's sports car crashes at high speed and rolls about ten times, yet the next day he walks about without even limping!! Ya-a-awn.... This is why films like King Kong are more believable: they were intended to be fantasy films where reality can be thrown overboard. James Bond films (Transporter, Fast & Furious, ANY Marvel superhero film, etc,) substitute credibility for effect. Even these 'effective' action sequences can be terribly daunting to watch if they are senseless. Some credit due to Casino Royale, though, the action scenes are much more believable than the crap they write into the latest Fast & Furious films. And - apart from being absolutely dashing - Daniel Craig makes a credible Bond. (Oh, and the love interest scenes in Casino Royale were absolutely pathetic and so blatantly forced, it hurts.) Bond is a Casanova, keep it that way!
5/10
But...it's not Bond, James Bond
jbraun198412 July 2007
This is NOT a bad movie…not by any means. Then why the relatively low rating? Because, it's just NOT Bond, James Bond any more. The production values in this movie are quite high…the storyline is decent…and even Daniel Craig, blond hair and all, is respectable as 007 if you like the very dry no-nonsense sort (and, I'm not talking about his shaken or stirred – because he apparently doesn't give a damn this time around). However, this movie didn't even have the decency to rip-off its predecessors. Instead, it's a complete rip-off of the Ludlum "Bourne" series (of movies anyway). And, I love the Bourne series by the way…because it's Bourne and not 007. Now I can't even like 007 because it's unique unto itself and I refuse to like it because it's like Bourne.

So I guess we've (they've) finally come to the end of the road as far as James Bond movies go. They've started to remake the old movies which I guess was bound to happen sooner or later (amazing how idea-less Hollywood can be at times). The stories will be much darker and without much in the way of humor…just what the new generation needs. As for Casino Royale (2006), I will not watch it again as there is no joy in doing so and I already know what's going to happen. Once was definitely enough. Give me Casino Royale (1967) any day…at least it is unique unto itself (even though it's not even close to being one of the better Bonds'…but as a satire, it's damn entertaining). Give me the Connery, Brosnan, Dalton, and Lazenby versions of Bond (you can keep Moore's version…what a 'dweeb!'). And please, give me the cold war and the old James back...it was a far more interesting time!!
4/10
plenty of action but too many plot holes
wrudd18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
25 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the write ups on this movie I was thinking it was going to be closer to the novels. It looks like it started out that way but they wound up putting in so many holes into the plot in order to have a particular action scene they lost me. Some big and some small. Here are some examples: 1. Bond kills the suspected bomber in the African embassy then blows it up. Next action but at the start of the scene they made a point of saying they wanted the guy alive. Why couldn't Bond just get out then try to pick him up again later? This one is a small point and could be written off as poor judgment or maybe he didn't want him alive so badly after all. It would seem that he was a lot closer to escaping earlier in the sequence and Bond never thought about shooing him then.

2. The top bomber was being hired to drive a gasoline truck into a parked airplane? And a giant airplane to boot? Why did that need a top agent? I think the people in Iraq have shown it doesn't take a lot of skill to deliver a car bomb. If they wanted a top guy couldn't he have used a rocket or a remotely controlled vehicle? It seems to have been done this way just for the Indiana Jones type fight in the truck cab.

3. A big one - the CIA was going to pick up Mr One Eye. Felix Leiter tells Bond it's set. The next thing we know Mr One Eye is not only free from the CIA but has his crew of thugs able to kidnap people and take them away without any CIA tail. I guess you could write this off to incompetence on the part of the CIA but that is pretty bad. I had a real problem with this.

4. One-eye wants both the bank code and the password so needs the woman and Bond alive. However they leave the woman in the road where Bond could run over her and or kill himself in a crash getting out of the way. It made for a nice scene but a few minutes later when we found out the bad guys needed them alive it made no sense at all. The whole point was to get the account number and password, if one or both of them were dead how would they be able to get the money??

5. Bond is being tortured and at the last second the old man with the gun comes in and blows One-eye away. So the old man can track down the bad guys but Felix Leiter is still back asleep in the hotel? Okay so the CIA is incompetent but why did the old man kill one-eye so quickly? The airplane bomb-plot just failed a few days ago and rather than wait to see if one-eye can come up with the money he is just killed outright? What is the point of that? It's obvious that the old man doesn't have any trouble tracking down one-eye so why not at least try to get the money back? If the old man wanted the girl to give him the money that is okay but why let one-eye off the hook? If the money is that important why not break one of his legs or something. I don't think many loan sharks would stay in business if they killed someone the 1st time they said they asked for a few days extension.

6. So right after Bond goes through hell the girl decides to screw him over because someone (the old man?) has kid napped her old boy friend? At this point she didn't trust Bond enough to let him try to help? MI-5 sent her on this mission with $15 million and she was being blackmailed? So they are incompetent too? And their man on the scene turned as well? Or did Bond screw that up? Between the CIA and the MI-5 screw ups you have to wonder what is the point?

It seemed like I was back in the Roger Moore days by the end of the movie. Daniel Craig was good but I really don't think James Bond should be the sort of man that goes to the gym to work on his pecs. I thought he would look with disdain on puffer body builders.
4/10
This is supposed to be a good Bond movie?
changingshades26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am not a bond guy. I never have been and at this rate I bet I never will be. This movie had one really good action sequence and a plot that left me bored and annoyed. James was about as effective in this film as I would have been. OOO, he can play poker. That's the extent of his contribution past the blowing up of a foreign consulate in Africa. He didn't take down the bad guy. He was an idiot when it came to the girl. I was expecting something closer to the books where he'd be more of an masochistic jerk and drunk, instead we get the same old same old where he beds the woman and feels bad when they die and fights spies. Oh but at least the older movies he is effective against the spies and terrorists. Here, the CIA, other terrorists, and the chick totally save his stupid ass. I give it a 4/10
5/10
007 is Back in Town but Bourne remains Supreme
arahman15 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the eagerly anticipated resurrection of the James Bond franchise. Besides the generational change in lead character we also witness a very different style and attitude to previous bond movies that appears to be in response to the success of the Bourne Identity action spy franchise. The similarities are often so similar that it appears that Casino Royale is paying homage to Bourne and its raw realism than one of the oldest and most successful franchises in movie history. This appears to be the film's downfall. Bourne Identity breathed life into to the spy action movie genre by substituting over the top cartoon action with brutal realism and subtle emotion. Matt Damon and the new movie franchise were so successful in achieving this that many questioned the appropriateness of a larger than life chauvinistic Bond in the 21st century (an American spy now also managed to look more cool than the legendary British agent). This argument was not hard to make when the instantly forgettable recent bond movies with Pierce Brosnan (excluding Golden Eye) were so dismal (I don't thing Brosnan was bad but the material was awful). In any case Bond desperately needed to see change and it appears that they have borrowed heavily from Bourne to achieve this. Whilst the action and fight sequences are impressive they still fail to improve on what is achieved in the Bourne franchise. However, Bond is not Bourne and there are many ingredients that go into a bond movie. Whilst Casino Royale is taking a fresh approach to the franchise one would still expect it to pay homage to its predecessors and possibly offer a fresh approach on these ingredients. Firstly lets take the characteristic car chase sequence. What is on offer in Casino Royale? A beautiful Aston Martin that is driven for less than a minute in the dark and then crashes, OK that's nice. Gadgets? A resuscitation machine, OK... Theme tune? Some random melody with no chorus or tie in with the movie that will no doubt go down as one of the worst bond themes in history. Bond Villains with a master plan? Some random financiers who seemed like fairly decent blokes... etc etc Bond needed to evolve but this appears to be a derivative of its modern day replacement. Daniel Craig is good, there are some good action sequences and the style of the movie works well (ultimately the hardest thing to achieve given the legacy of the past). Whilst the movie abandons many ingredients of the past, this could be forgiven if one left the cinema enthralled but Casino Royale is unable to achieve this. The pace of the movie is very slow in places and you really feel it, consequently the long running time is more of an ordeal than value for money. The relationship Bond has with the lead female exhibits some of the most slow paced scenes (alongside the Casino games) and whilst the twists and turns are interesting they don't seem to work very well and are a little confused. The final 30 minutes of the movie is a let down and a far cry from the grand finale's of past bond movies (or any action movie really) Casino Royale is not a bad movie but does not really offer the viewer a fast paced action thriller, any real plot development or any real emotional depth (arguably a necessary substitute for the elimination of traditional bond ingredients). It does however offer a very different style to its predecessors and a strong lead character that has consequently generated huge interest in the new franchise. So whilst Bourne may remain supreme, he may have to watch his back in the future.
5/10
Nothing More Than An Enjoyable Action Flick
hugibert_aldred5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
56 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When Daniel Craig was cast as Bond, unlike many I did not hold my hands up in despair, and predict a flop. I was willing to give him a chance, and certainly felt he could give something different to the role.

Sadly, this film left me with an extreme sense of frustration. Perhaps due to my high hopes for the film, and the many positive reviews? And yet, it seems beyond my personal expectations. The film tried too hard to be different, the end result being an entirely different Bond film, but a very unoriginal Hollywoodised action flick.

Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal edge to Bond, but what Hollywood action hero isn't tough and brutal? In fact, it was the desire for Hollywood action that ruined this film for me.

For example, the scene containing free running (parkour) near the beginning epitomises the desire for great action, and little sense. If you recall, there is a moment where Bond decides to climb into some sort of demolition vehicle. Yes, it looked great as the vehicle came crashing through a concrete wall, but if we actually think about it, there was no need whatsoever? It did not achieve anything, not just in terms of film artistry, but also plot - it didn't help him catch the bad guy!

The free running itself was another attempt by the director to wow the audience into submission, there was quite literally no point to it whatsoever. Why on earth did the villain decide to go up a crane? - "I know, I can escape him by climbing to the top of a crane" - No my friend you would have been better off finding yourself a car. I am not surprised this film has been received well and that it is a hit at the box office - but I'm sorry Mr.Campbell, I see through you.

I will openly admit I found the poker scenes enjoyable, and I found Mads Mikklesen's performance particularly enjoyable.

Not a bad effort, and it does indeed breathe new life into the Bond genre, but I could quite easily go down to Blockbuster, search the action section for 5 minutes and find something just as good! Ultimately, what I found offensive about this film, was that all involved seemed to believe that if they throw a load of heavy duty action scenes at the audience to satisfy us - not this film goer I'm afraid.. 5/10
5/10
Bond without the elegance or competence
flash-10426 November 2006
The producers's declared intent of bringing Bond back to his roots would have been an interesting idea, and the novel _Casino Royale_ might make an interesting basis for a film some day. There are a few intriguing moments seeing Bond before he was actually good at his job— though after, of course, he acquired his mystic ability to dodge bullets. But there are only a few, and most (though not all) of the film isn't worth watching even for those of us who can tolerate the lowest depths of the franchise. It seems deliberately to avoid the charm and humor even the worst of the Bond films occasionally displayed, replacing it only with even nastier gratuitous violence.

Note to Mr Haggis: Mechanical translation of "communist" to "terrorist," and "baccarat" to "poker," doesn't actually work, and deliberate ugliness is worse than even ersatz elegance. I wouldn't expect your co-authors to grasp this point, but I'm surprised I have to explain it to the second best actual writer ever credited for a Bond screenplay.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Even accountants need a good lay
caleb-jamiesons7 November 2020
It takes too much banter and back and forth before the chick spreads it for James Bond. I mean this is James Bond not Liberal Play Hour so please. At least she was thin and comely and not trashy tattooed.
33 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
How NOT to make a Bond.
bigdgun29 December 2006
This is by far the worst of the James Bond franchise. One can only hope that it does not spell it's own demise. Except for an intense early chase scene on a construction site, the action is stiff, boring and violent for the sake of violence. Even the great chase scene ends in such a mediocre manner that it dispels the entire purpose of the chase. Daniel Craig does OK as a well-built Bond without passion or humor, traits that made Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan endearing and entertaining. M (Judy Dench) is her usual brusque and efficient self.

The movie begins with a retrospect of Bond's first "kill" and his lack of experience and early promotion without garnering the trust of his superiors, is mentioned repeatedly. HOWEVER (and I accent however), M then refers to research done post-9/11. Ouch! And then there is a poker scene (the only reference to a casino in the entire movie) which must go on for at least half an hour and is obviously only there to appeal to America's ESPN poker craze. And come on, $150,000,000 is the only thing at stake here. If Bond can't save the world anymore, then we no longer need him.
8/10
The Best James Bond Movie In the Last Years
claudio_carvalho6 May 2007
After receiving license to kill from the MI-6, the secret agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) follows his leads and avoids the destruction of the greatest airplane in the world in Miami plotted by the evil banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) to crash the bonds in the stock market and break the air flight company. The banker loses the funds of international terrorist organizations and organizes a poker game in Casino Royale, in Montenegro, to raise the money of the investors. James Bond travels with the British accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) to bet and defeat La Chiffre and force him to look for protection with the MI-6, disclosing the names of the terrorists. James wins, but is double-crossed, in a game of betrayals and murders.

The model "007" was completely exhausted in the last Pierce Brosnan movies, with silly plots and cartoonist scenes. All the previous actors were handsome, with the stereotype of the British gentleman, exactly the opposite of Daniel Craig. This actor is surprisingly responsible for the renewal of the franchise, presenting the best James Bond movie in the last years, with a violent and tough character in a great adventure. The beauty and elegance of Eva Green make her one of the most beautiful Bond girls ever. The screenplay, full of betrayals and plot points, is consistent and well resolved, and the viewer does not feel the running time of 144 minutes and the wonderful locations complete this great entertainment. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Cassino Royale" ("Casino Royale")
2/10
Bond's no Bourne ... problem is, Bond's not Bond either
garboventures29 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The latest Bond outing, Casino Royale, starring Daniel Craig in the leading role, is over-hyped rubbish. Sorry. I know it has plentiful fans and critical support, but I was thoroughly unimpressed by the whole experience.

I had high hopes for this film. After the dire Die Another Day, I couldn't see any other direction for the franchise to go, but up. How wrong I was.

In truth, the Bourne franchise, with Matt Damon as the super-cool tough guy Jason Bourne, fighting against the worst excesses of the US secret services, has knocked Bond for six. The dark, gritty froideur of Bourne and the imaginative direction from first Doug Liman and then Paul Greengrass ensured Bond looked kitsch and laboured in comparison. Bond producers were rightly concerned. Their solution, it seemed, was to emulate Bourne. Big mistake!

Bond and Bourne are based on entirely different premises. James Bond is an insider, he works for Mi6, and according to Ian Fleming, Bond is Eton-educated, a man born out of British imperialist traditions. (Although in this new version of Casino Royale, Bond is strictly State-school).

Jason Bourne is an outsider of uncertain origin - a CIA-trained killing machine who is now intent on recovering his identity. Thus, however maverick or disobedient Bond may be, he is ultimately on government pay, whereas Bourne is a social outcast, unearthing the dark and sinister secrets underpinning the State - the prime source of all the best paranoid conspiracy theories, which epitomise the uncertain, fearful world we live in today. From this point of view, Bond is pretty much stuffed.

Casino Royale is even further hampered by its lack of a decent plot-line. Yes, yes, we know this is now post 9/11 ... Judi Dench's M tells us this in the starkest terms possible. But this has little effect on plot detail it seems. Even the rise of extremist Islamic terrorism hasn't informed the new look Bond, in spite of being viewed world over as the major terrorist force of our times.

So what do we get with Casino Royale? A muddled narrative which focuses on financial fraud - namely fixing stock prices by means of sponsoring terrorist actions. Which terrorists? Well, we never learn this vital piece of information.

Our 'Bond Villain' is the terrorist money-man, Mads Mikkelson, complete with a creepy bleeding tear-duct, who has lost $150m and needs to recoup it in a poker game. Wow whoopee .... edge of the seat stuff ... I was almost crying with boredom. The plot thus revolved, seemingly, around this $150m, and Bond's sharpest card-playing tactics to prevent it falling into the wrong hands. Now I hate to be flippant - but let's face it, $150m is diddly-squat in the big scheme of things.

To be fair, the opening scenes, Bond's first kills, were fantastic. And then there was an exciting high wire crane-chase with Bond hunting down a bomb-maker in Madagascar. All good stuff. We then had a mildly riveting action sequence at Miami airport with Bond trying to save a new Skyfleet super-plane from being blown up by the bad guys. But it went dramatically downhill from there.

Bond was dispatched to Montenegro and the interminable poker game at the heart of the film - which was punctuated, mercifully, by a few bouts of unbridled violence. This sequence culminated in a much-hyped torture scene, and then there was an endless coda in Venice, when Bond discovers the true perfidy of Vesper Lynd, the slink Missy he has fallen for.

Lynd was played by the stylish French actress Eva Green, whose plummy British vowels sounded like she was gobbling clumps of broken china and had a bad cold to boot, poor dear. Plus, her natural good looks were swamped by lashings of thick black kohl.

As for Bond himself. Could Daniel Craig overcome his critics? In a word, no ... Except, yes. The critics have positively wet themselves with surprised glee, admiration and probably contrition at Craig's Bond. This universal acclaim has declared him to be the best Bond since Connery. How can this be??

I seriously wonder if I am living on an alternative planet ... Craig's Bond was mediocre, at best (and believe me, I was cheesed-off at the whiny Craig-bashing pre-Bond). His primary facial expression was a strangely screwed-up, pursed-lip 'thing' which riled me. His voice is flat and toneless and he lacked charisma. Worse still, he is humourless.

OK so we know the famous Bond 'quips' were a non-starter in this all-new, oh-so-serious Bond ... well Bond producers, scriptwriters et al, get over yourselves! We need a Bond with a 'twinkle' - even while dispatching the villains with calculated, sociopathic violence. Bond's wit is an essential ingredient. Jason Bourne, of course, does not need to be funny. That is not his style, which is born out of anguish, pain, a sense of loss. But then again, this is not Bourne. I'll just repeat that. THIS IS NOT BOURNE.

Craig, in fairness, was given precious little to work with. He is a fine actor. But in Casino Royale, the script is risible. During the interminable poker- game we actually get 'commentary' from one of the secondary characters, Mathis (Giancarlo Gianninni). And still, the game doesn't make sense.

On the plus side, the locations are magnificent. Montenegro is a combination here of the Czech Republic and Italy's spectacular Lake Como, and the Bahamas look fabulous. As a deluxe tourist brochure Casino Royale is at its very best.

I was surprised to see that Martin Campbell had directed this film so poorly. I loved Goldeneye. It was outlandish, silly, occasionally hammy, but boy, was it a thrilling ride!! But this seems far too much like good, old-fashioned audience-pleasing fun for the new look po-faced Bond.
1/10
Piece of $#&%!!!!
superhavi31 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
119 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I walked into the theaters to see this movie I was not expecting much, but, Wow, what a piece of crap!

This movie does in no way meet the high standards set by the other Bond movies. Some say that it is still a good action flick, but hey, which movie did those people watch? Well, I suppose not this movie, or they've maybe fallen asleep during those awfully boring poker scenes. That would explain how some say, that it could go through as a "good" action movie. Because if you cut out that poker crap, you really have some decent action here, but those fifteen minutes can't help the movie.

So, in order to help those fans, that still want to see the movie, to save some money, I'll round up the story now:

Bond kills one guy in a loo, then kills another guy in an office.

Music.

Bond kills a terrorist after chasing him. (Until now roughly ten minutes have passed)

Bond plays Poker, and does some advertising for SONY, OMEGA and FORD. (Now there are only 20 minutes to the end)

The bad guy captures Bond and his Lady, tortures him and gets killed by another bad guy that has not yet been introduced to us.

Bond awakes in a hospital, travels to Venice with his girl. A house collapses, she gets killed and Bond kills the other bad guy that inexplicably seems to be the mastermind.

And I paid money for that!
4/10
This is a new direction, no question
abcs9919 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just saw the movie. It definitely is a change of direction for the franchise and the series, appealing to a different viewer than the first 20 Bond films. In no particular order: (1) Unusual opening that didn't feature a great chase sequence to some sort of surprise; (2) No "R" (John Cleese), with the only gadgetry of the life-saving nature...no Moneypenny for that matter; (3) No megalomaniac/rule the world type of singular enemy; (4) Bond isn't a ladies man, nor are they particularly interested in him; (5) No significant car chase scenes (the airport struggle was creative, however); (6) A lot of vulnerable moments for Bond; (7) the infamous lines are skipped (shaken, not stirred) or deferred (Bond, James Bond); (8) the comic relief is minimal, delayed until at least 1/3-1/2 way through, and some of the jokes are missed altogether due to their lengthy development; (9) the famous Monty Norman music is largely ignored and delayed until the end, almost as if an afterthought or an annoying prerequisite (although the up-tempo music used in the beginning was interesting); (10) Bond falls in love, something not really seen since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where the reasons were far clearer; (11) Craig plays a rougher Bond, even topping Dalton in this regard, and a bloodier Bond (although he heals remarkably quickly and illogically between scenes); (12) Judi Dench is showing her age and really is an almost-cameo character who, in this film, distrusts Bond; (13) there are excellent foot chase scenes; (14) a lot of the verbiage is missed as it's close to if not "under the breath" (I recommend turning subtitles on when it's out on video), particularly at the black and white type of beginning when it was crucial to get on board as to the plot; and (15)it's long, seeming to miss a natural ending about 1/2 hour before the actual ending. Plot-wise, it was confusing to this long-time Bond film watcher that Craig was bestowed a "double O" status in this show when Dench was in the film, when it was more logical to skip the fact that this was the first book and merely portray it as continuing the Bond legacy with a new episode and still another actor in that role. The standpoint that was taken felt similar to the making of "Never Say Never Again" which was reportedly an attempt to improve "Thunderball." Craig didn't gain instant acceptance as Bond with this viewer as Moore and Brosnan did, who were in familiar detective roles pre-Bond (The Saint and Remington Steele, respectively), so the jury is out for him like it was for Dalton. More importantly, the significant structural changes might just well relegate future Bond releases to DVD watching.
7/10
I do not care
doomedmac27 December 2020
It is impossible for me to care about this movie. I don't like any of the characters. The plot is mediocre. Meh.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not your quintessential Bond movie!
gautam-ramdurai19 January 2007
The first Bond book has been manifested on-screen in this movie. For most-this Bond is a "NEW" Bond. The movie lacks most of the signature characteristics of a quintessential bond movie. As far as my memory goes, Bond movies stand for THREE things - Girls, Gadgets and Globe-trotting! The new bond lacks the suave, smooth, Casanova ways of this legendary character with the my-suit-stays-perfect-even-when-I'm-underwater attitude. This bond is all about brawn, all about hitting and punching. But isn't that what most protagonists are doing. Bond is supposed to be a man - not another kid on the block. And to think of a Bond with a clean chest! - Remember Sean Connery's lines "Bird always make nest in hairy chest"!! And the fact that he has an interest in just ONE woman in this movie is disappointing -- for to most men, he is the ultimate man - a man so smooth that he can have any woman-ANY woman!

The approach of a more "humane" bond is not going to work out in in the long run. There're a lot of "humane" characters out there-just let Bond be what he is - Bond!!!
4/10
The anti-Bond
proffate15 March 2007
Whenever a producer decides to "reinvent" a classic film character, the result is generally horrific. That rule holds true for James Bond in Casino Royale.

Reinvention is a scary process. Roger Moore supposedly wanted Cuba Gooding, Jr. to be the first black James Bond. Maybe then we could have the first Eskimo James Bond, followed by the first Pygmy James Bond. Given the success of March of the Penguins and in deference to the animal rights crowd, we could even have a penguin James Bond. (Hey, they both look good in a tux.)

According to the song, Mr. Kiss-Kiss Bang-Bang, "He's tall and he's dark, and like the shark he looks for trouble...." Daniel Craig's Bond is short (or at least average) and blond. When asked if he wants his vodka martini shaken or stirred, he angrily replies, "Do I look as though I care?" Definitely anti-Bond.

Facially, Mr. Craig looks like a dissipate Steve McQueen. Steve McQueen was cool, right? James Bond is cool,too. So could McQueen ever have played James Bond? Not bloody likely.

I read most of the Bond books some forty years ago, and my views of the character are mostly shaped by subsequent movies. Bond is suave, cool under pressure, resourceful, witty and constantly horny. Craig's version is blunt, angry, lucky, bland and (Lord save us!) ultimately SENSITIVE.

The movie manages to redeem itself somewhat through the well done action sequences, but that doesn't make it a good Bond movie.

Daniel Craig is definitely not the new James Bond, unless you're willing to abandon the character entirely. Maybe he can be the new Lemmy Caution.
4/10
Hated it!
rps-25 December 2006
To enjoy a Bond film, it was always necessary to suspend belief. The villains were over the top. The stories were close to fantasy. The violence had almost a Tom And Jerry quality to it, not to be taken seriously. This new Bond film changes all that. "Le Chiffre" is no more menacing then your average mugger. All he does is scowl a lot. The new Bond girl looks like a school teacher. And this new Bond is gritty and blue collar, not at all the classy, glib gent portrayed by Sean Connery and his sophisticated successors. There are no gadgets more exotic than cell phones and GPS sets. There is no Moneypenny. There is no "Q." And the action scenes lack the tongue in cheek aspect of the earlier films. Nor, with one piddling exception, are there any of the neat one liners and double entendres that were a trademark of the earlier films. It's as though Hannah-Barbera suddenly decided to do thoughtful cinema rather than have fun.The earlier Bond films were good fun. This one attempts serious drama but produces only run of the mill hash.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good bond film
jillbeckinheim730 October 2021
I think the best James bond was Pierce brosnan - I know you disagree with this, but that's my opinion.

Despite the hype surrounding CR which many people claim is the greatest Bond movie ever there are a few flaws to it . One is that it follows the novel a bit too closely in the second half . In the novel Le Chiffre doesn't really do anything evil except play cards and wallop Bond in the genitals and this is recreated on screen . However this is rather small fry for a movie bad guy and you do find yourself wishing his cruelty could have fleshed out more . There's also an obligatory daft sequence where a defibrillator comes in to play which leads you to ask if Bond's a clairvoyant . CR also feels overlong by about half an hour

That said the first half is superb and the African scenes where Bond pursues his quarry back to the embassy are amongst the most exciting action sequences you will see in any movie . Likewise the attempted bombing at Miami airport that shows Bond can be a callous assassin when he has to be . Craig is wonderful in the role and he's helped in no small part by a lack of comedy situations and characters as seen in previous entries . Some people might miss Q and his gadgets but I didn't . I much preferred this serious character driven Bond.
5/10
The hawthorn can't give apples
valadas6 December 2006
James Bond's movie stories and the likes of them are worth what they are and we cannot ask for very deep plots, messages or pathetic dramas. They are made only to amuse us for a couple of hours and make us forget the sorrows of life. But even in that framing we may ask that they amuse us with some logic and likelihood because they are not exactly farces (where nonsense is admitted as an art). We don't want them to be just a pile of more or less breathtaking scenes without any convincing thread putting them together. This new James Bond movie suffers precisely of these defects. A British spy trying to deprive "terrorists" of their financial means without us knowing which kind of "terrorists" are those since the world now is full of terrorists of several colours and allegiances some of them even opposed. At least during Cold War the camps were clearly defined. We are thus presented with a succession of scenes (most of them much more violent than in precedent Bond's movies and with much more blood spilling) of great visual impact without a convincing story behind them. As a matter of fact we don't even end by knowing who is with whom and against whom since Bond's adversaries are presented as belonging to different camps so often till the end of the movie. The sentimental story introduced in the second half is so stereotyped that it's quite unconvincing as well as its outcome in the end. Daniel Craig makes a James Bond much tougher than all his predecessors namely Roger Moore and Sean Connery who had much more elegance and subtlety. Craig is a bit loutish as a matter of fact. What remains then of this movie? Nothing more than the real thrilling impact of some visual scenes despite the unlikelihood of some of them. The hawthorn cannot give apples indeed.
7/10
Sometimes it's a good thing to reinvent the wheel.
wisewebwoman11 December 2006
And this was fun, fun all the way. Daniel Craig is the sexiest Bond ever, a crystal-clear-blue-eyed, outwardly machismo guy, with an inward vulnerability and abs to die for.

Standard Ian Fleming plot updated for 2006 with (surprise!) less of the gizmos and gear than prior Bonders,and more character development of the female lead, Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green.

Everything was just about predictable from the get-go, some incredible stunt work on cranes and speedy switching of locations which makes seeing it in a wide screen theatre the best choice. The denouement in Venice is stunning, the collapse of an old building riveting.

Craig brings an authenticity to the character not seen before on film, and I have seen quite a few of the prior Bond films albeit as a reluctant partner.

The torture scenes are brutal, they would make even the most virile of male viewers whimper, the poker scenes were ho-hum, the baccarat called for in the original books disappears, the villain, played incredibly well by Mads Mikkelsen, is underwritten, not enough back-story to engage the viewer.

I'm sure it is the beginning of a long and beautiful series, I'm glad it's attracting the full female audience quotient, I accompanied a 90 year old female who thoroughly enjoyed the afore-mentioned eyeful of Daniel Craig and the spectacular locations shots (Lake Como has never looked more lovely). 7 out of 10.
7/10
Such a shame...
quatermax-18 February 2008
Simply giving a guy a big gun, an Aston Martin and Dame Judy Dench as his boss doesn't make him James Bond.

There are things Bond, and Bond movies, must have and do to be Bond, and this guy, and this movie, just hasn't got any of them.

Sure he's ruthless, dispassionate and tough as a paid killer should be, but so was Jason Bourne. It can be no coincidence that Robert Ludlum called his amnesiac trained assassin Jason Bourne – JB right? It even sounds like Sean Connery's pronunciation of 'James Bond'. Has the Bond franchise been bullied into hardening up the character to compete with the Bournes, Ethan Hunts and XXXs of the cinematic world? I can see the need to compete, but not to the extent of compromising the character. Don't they realise that all the others are just wannabe Bonds? They're trying to reach his level, so why make it easy by dropping down to theirs? The producers would have us believe that this is a new Bond. 'Forget the past' they say. But how can we? I've often said that Bond should go back to its roots and be started all over again afresh, it needed to and this was their golden opportunity, but they've done it half-heartedly and made a hash of it.

It's already established in the Bond timeline that Bond is the veteran agent (no matter who played him), that he's been married (Lazenby wed in OHMSS, but the relationship was also referred to in OCTOPUSSY and LICENCE TO KILL, Moore and Dalton movies respectively), and that Judy Dench's 'M' is the newcomer. Now we are to believe that she is the veteran 'M' and Bond is the newly promoted agent. If this is supposedly a new Bond, why is she even there? She links the character with the previous movies. Having a completely new 'M' also would have helped enormously, Dame Judy's presence just screws it up.

As to Bond himself, Daniel Craig, no matter how gifted an actor, is NOT Bond. The character is clearly defined and described in the books, and Craig just does not fit in any respect. The obvious starter is the fact that Bond as described is definitely not blonde. He certainly doesn't look like an ex-boxer. So, is this 'Ian Fleming's James Bond' as claimed in the credits, or is it now 'Micheal G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli's James Bond'? Also this is supposed to be a younger Bond at the beginning of his 00 career. Can any of you really tell me that Craig looks appreciably younger than Brosnan? Yes, Bond is a hired killer, and as I said earlier, ruthless, dispassionate, cruel even, but he's also handsome (sorry Daniel), suave, sophisticated, well educated, well heeled, has good tailors and knows his food and his drinks. He has to in order to mix in the circles in which he may find himself. Bond would never respond to the question 'Shaken or stirred sir?' with 'Do I look like I give a ****'. Bond was often shaken, but never stirred. James Bond was also an accomplished bullshitter. If you've ever read 'The Book of Bond – Every Man his own 007', supposedly written by 'M's Chief of Staff, and Bond's friend, Bill Tanner, but actually written by Kingsley Amis, you will find examples from the books to illustrate that if Bond doesn't know something he deftly makes up something, based on his experience, intelligence and education I hasten to add, totally feasible and believable in order to maintain his aura of total infallibility. Still bullshit all the same, but never, EVER would he allow himself to appear to be a simple thug (unless it suited his purposes of course). This is what makes him James Bond and the character that all other movie spies have aspired to since the franchise began. Think of all the characters, movies and TV series Bond has inspired: The Man from UNCLE, The Avengers, Mission Impossible and yes, even Jason Bourne, in fact any spy character created since 1962's DR. NO you can guarantee the creator has had James Bond at the back of his mind. If they can't BE James Bond, they counter James Bond with characters like Harry Palmer, David Callan or Alec Leamas, or they spoof James Bond with Derek Flint, Matt Helm and Austin Powers (though how you can spoof something that was a spoof in the first place…). Bond also doesn't live in this world, and trying to make him a part of the real world just doesn't work. Bond lives in an exotic world, a world some of us wish we could be a part of, but our only link is through the screen. I don't go to see a Bond movie expecting reality, human frailty, serious drama – I want to see James Bond! It's been famously said that Bond is the man most men want to be and the man most women want to be with. There's a magic, a surrealism to Bond, and this movie just hasn't got it. It's a good movie (which is why it gets a 7), but it's not a Bond movie.

Craig's character, and I mean that quite pointedly, states at the end of the movie that 'The name's Bond. James Bond'. Well, sorry, but no it isn't. It could be anybody. Maybe it was just put in to remind us what, and who, we were watching, either way it's killed my future interest in the franchise.

Such a shame.
3/10
Disappointing
hmmdrmike18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Craig has the brawn, but definitely lacks the charisma to be a true bond. His scenes with every girl are very flat and lack chemistry. Eva Green is a great bond girl, but Bond's "lines" come out uninspired. Whereas Brosnan was all flash and little substance, Craig provides the gritty, tough fight scenes that have been missing but isn't able to exude the same level of charm that James Bond requires.

The plot line is also bad. Without revealing too many spoilers, is the audience really supposed to believe that the big, bad plan of the main villain is a poker game? This isn't a WSOP episode on ESPN, this is a Bond movie.

In conclusion:

Fight scenes good Everything else bad

Was this a good action film? Yes, it was; it was probably one of the best action films that I've seen in a while. But that speaks more about the low quality of today's action films than Casino Royale's high quality. Was this a good Bond film? Yes, it was better than Brosnan's worst (Tomorrow) but not near his best (Goldeneye). I like Daniel Craig as an actor, but he doesn't seem comfortable in the Bond role.

Watch The Prestige instead.
7/10
Smashing action sequences but the gambling scenes are too lengthy...
Doylenf28 November 2006
First, let me say that DANIEL CRAIG makes a very believable James Bond and is certainly up to the demands of all the action sequences. What he seems to lack (in between all the brawls and stunts) is the sort of charm that characterized Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan when they weren't engaged in stunts. He has piercing blue eyes, a cold look, a nasty temper when aroused and all the other attributes needed for Bond--but he could work on the charm.

Two more minor complaints: I wasn't at all impressed with either of the Bond girls--each with accents that hindered understanding their words when they whispered--which was often and neither one a great beauty.

And secondly, that theme song under the opening credits added nothing to the credits which were, in themselves, stunning to look at with gorgeous graphic art. The song was a complete throwaway and "you know my name" was about the only phrase I could decipher from the lyrics sung at full blast.

Other than that, no complaints except that the gambling scenes went on a little too long--with some exciting intervals between playing a card game involving millions which Bond had to prevent from going to fund terrorist activities. All of the Bond action scenes were superb, the best of their kind, with realistic beatings and risks being taken at full steam ahead. How anyone managed not to get injured during the making of this film, I'll never understand. Those stunt players (and Craig himself) deserve kudos for what they pull off here in the way of action-filled moments. One of the most memorable is the chase up and down construction sites that gets the story off to a flying start.

JUDY DENCH does a great job as "M", giving Bond a tongue-lashing for what she calls his overgrown ego that is stifling his judgment. I've seen better villains in other Bond films and nothing particularly memorable here to make me change my mind--except that the torture scene is almost unbearable to watch.

Overall, it's a stunning Bond action film with just an occasional lag but it manages to hold interest throughout with some choice bits of editing and direction. And DANIEL CRAIG comes through with flying colors except for that one ingredient--sophisticated charm. He could work on that as he grows into the part.
7/10
The Name might be Bond; but everything else is different
MrGeorgeKaplan21 November 2006
OK, it's a good film – in fact it is a great film. It's just not a Bond film.

I've got a few bits of ranting to do here, so excuse the lack of clear narrative.

Casino Royale has just had its opening weekend here in the UK and it's the HIGHEST GROSSING FIRST WEEKEND FOR ANY BOND FILM… EVER!!!. That's because cinema tickets are even more expensive than they were three years ago when Die Another Day came out. Also, since when has the weekend started on a Thursday? That's when I watched it, along with a load of other mugs who netted the cinemas £1.7m on the first day / preview.

Daniel Craig is undoubtedly a fine actor. I was particularly impressed with him in the virtually unseen The Trench. He has also put in some time to go to the gym, which is something I certainly don't have the discipline to do. He also looks bloody great in a suit while toting advanced automatic weaponry. I'm not so sure about the whole swimming trunk issue - if you want equality, fine, but that means some girls in bikinis too – that's how equality works. The whole taciturn, monosyllabic persona is great… for Jason Bourne… or possibly The Terminator, but this is Bond, with a cheesy quip for every situation: Sean Connery' - That's quite a nice little nothing you're almost wearing. I approve.' George Lazenby - 'this never happened to the other guy' (perhaps Craig was thinking of that when he was putting on his trunks). Roger Moore - elevated eyebrow, Pierce Brosnan - 'I thought Christmas only came once a year'. It takes Craig the entire film to unfreeze his face for long enough to say 'Bond, James Bond.'

Then the gadgets… oh well. James Bond is not a real person. He was never meant to be, he is a construct and a very important part of that construct is the gadgets. He is defined more by the car he drives and the clothes he wears than he is by his hair-colour or physique. To take this away from him is to empty him out rather than 'strip him back' as everyone is so fond of saying of Craig-Bond. To be honest I've not been happy with the whole Aston Martin thing since Ford bought Aston Martin, the '64 DB6 is a great hand-built bit of kit. The DBS is built in bulk for dull bankers who need something to blow their bonuses on. The whole travesty of the hire car at the airport is just completely beyond the pale. Okay Ford gave them £15m and a load of Jaguars and Astons, but Bond works for Queen and country, not for the highest bidder, and he is met the airport, not hanging about the Hertz desk while some fat tourists complain about their car not having a/c. So what have we got left? He has a defibrillator in the glove box of his car – old men with inappropriately young wives have defibs in their glove boxes.

Eva Green is pretty easy on the eye, but her real name is better than her Bond name (Vesper Lind sounds like a limited edition chocolate moped – sorry Mr Fleming). Her accent was weird and all over the shop, and her motivation was pretty confused for one supposed to be so bright. And can we not have any more Bond falling in love? Please? Weirdly Lazenby and Rigg managed to pull it off, but really Bond is a swinger at heart and modern girls can get their kicks with them too. This debacle just makes the end of the film drag on and on.

Speaking of the ending, basically wtf! Bond films don't end like that. They just don't. I can't believe I'm not allowed to spoil it for you, but I can take solace in the fact that it spoils itself.
10/10
This Bond movie is a royal flush.
Aaron137521 November 2006
I really enjoyed this film and it is the best movie I have seen this year as it is the only one I have given a ten too. Usually in a year there are at least two, and sometimes more, this year seemed destined to have none until I saw this movie. What can I say, I just had to have a little faith that 007 would save the day and movie year. Granted I enjoyed "Die Another Day" a lot too, it was all gadgets and special effects...this one I liked because of the simplicity of it all. The gadgets are all but gone, the action is more stunt work than special effects and this one really looks at the character of Bond like no other Bond film has because this is the beginning of his 00 career. Craig is really good as Bond as I would say he is rather close to the best Bond Sean Connery. Though I have enjoyed all the actors who have played that character so far. The action is great, but that is to be expected, the emotional twists in the story were not expected and were welcome by me, this movie shows us just what has made James Bond who he is. Judi Dench returns as M and is solid as usual, and she was rather funny in some of her scenes. The story has Bond tracking a man who is sort of a banker for terrorist. This man has a plan that Bond foils and costs him quite a lot of money, which this man hopes to win back in a game of Poker. So Bond gets in on the game and is joined by a lovely lady whom he apparently is falling for bad. This movie plays out very well and I look forward to seeing it again, as I also look forward to seeing Craig as James Bond again.
4/10
Poker Face.
ilikepuppies27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Two quick points to make here.

First, that opening chase. It's a staple of the series to begin the film with a speedy pursuit. Forget Bond films. This is one of the most exciting of its kind in any movie I have ever seen. The best exploitation of space. And the clever abandonment of gadgetry in favor of the human body only. (Is there a more clever gadget, anyways?)

Second. Poker has inherently cinematic possibilities that have never been mined in any film I have seen. The game is many things, but is primarily an acting competition. Who's the most convincing? So there's room for all sorts of experiment in acting, yet films I have seen featuring poker all seem to rely on the "poker face" instead. It's anti-acting instead of the potentially thrilling possibility of meta-acting. Bummer.

Not that Craig could have approached pulling it off, anyways.
8/10
Refreshing
The_Triad4 December 2006
Casino Royale gives the Bond franchise a decent injection of adrenaline that it needed to be relevant again.

Chances are, you already know what Casino Royale is about, so I won't go too much into details. It is a difficult film to review, mainly because it will obviously be compared to all the other Bond movies (which I can't say I'm a fan of, they're mostly hit and miss decent enough action movies) and also because there is quite an odd structure to the proceedings. (Though, this may be because it doesn't follow the same structure as most other Bond movies.) I'll just get into it, the film succeeds due to the reinvention of the Bond character and becoming a back to basics film, this can be credited to both Daniel Craig and the scriptwriter for the former, and Martin Campbell for the latter. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is annoyed at the level of CGI used in films these days, it's usually so obvious it detracts from the film and lessens the impact due to it being completely fake looking. Thankfully, Casino Royale ditches this in favour of a more realistic approach, including the likes of Sebastien Foucan, parkour extraordinaire (the reason I wanted to see the film) to create some realistic, hard hitting action scenes.

Another aspect where the film succeeds is the relationship between Bond and Vesper Lynd, which was a joy to watch, and a welcome change from the bordering on Benny Hill antics that the likes of Roger Moore got into.

So, it's got solid realistic action, rounded enough characters for an action film (including the main "villain" Le Chiffre, who despite his eye gimmick keeps up with the reinvention of Bond, given decent reasons for his villainous actions, not just a madman bent on world domination.) The film fails on a few levels, as big and action packed and Bond as it is, I felt it may have worked better in three short episodes due to it's odd structure and pacing, it feels like three films pasted together. This is probably due to the fact that I was expecting a typical Bond structure, (Bond tracks villain, Bond beds women, Bond beats villain, Bond gets his girl, end) which the film was brave enough to ditch, so not really a big failure. The other main failure is the now mandatory product placement, (the scene with the Ford looking particularly just like a car advert) but I usually look upon product placements as tongue in cheek myself, and have a bit of a giggle about it rather than kick up a fuss.

In a nutshell, Casino Royale is a meandering journey with James Bond, complete with hard hitting scrapes, gambling for the Queen, and relationships with women. A very entertaining film.
1/10
Adults liked this film?
plupu663 October 2009
I could not believe that so many adults could give more than 2 stars to this film. It does not have a plot. The action is not believable even by a long stretch of imagination. The actors and actresses apart from showing muscle and breasts respectively are not able to show anything else. The kind of big money such a film makes is only proof of the very low IQ of may movie-goers. It is sad how Hollywood and comp manages to brain-wash and brain-damage its public. A bunch of sadistic terrorists, some exploding cars and a half dozen pairs of well-filled bras fill the pockets of a movie industry lacking imagination, soul and most of all, morals The entire film is an insult to a thinking person's intelligence.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Failure on Every Level
madbeast23 November 2006
It is mystifying to me that this film has received so many good reviews, as I thought it failed on almost every level. The plot is nominally centered around how James Bond "becomes" James Bond (clearly hoping to achieve the same kind of success that "Batman Begins" won), but it misses the mark by taking an established character firmly rooted in the 1960s Cold War mentality and implying that he starts out in the world of the mid-2000s with middle eastern terrorists, cell phones, and digital technology.

Not helping the enterprise is the casting of Daniel Craig, certainly the most humorless actor to ever play Bond and who the script implies has the moldability and insecurities of a young man starting out in his career. But Craig is close to 40 years old with the complexion of a saddle bag, and it is impossible to buy that a man of that age is going to smooth his rough edges into the character in a white dinner jacket matching wits with super villains like Ernst Blofeld and Auric Goldfinger. Instead, Craig's Bond is a surly thug who would be shown the door by security at the first five-star resort that he tried to check in at.

Craig isn't given any assistance by a lackluster script, which does its best to rob Bond of the glamour associated with the character. The plot centers around a silly plan for terrorists to raise money for their operations by taking part in an interminable game of Texas Hold 'Em, a game that one usually associates with playing with old college buddies while drinking beer on a Saturday night and not in the exotic universe of James Bond (in the novel, the characters play Baccarat), that Bond ducks out of occasionally to take part in unspeakable acts of violence (fortunately, Giancarlo Giannini is around as a character who sits table-side to spout ridiculous lines of dialogue that exist only to provide explanation of what's going on with the plot to audience members who have nodded off during the poker game). You'd think that characters playing for a hundred and fifty million dollar pot would be more insistent on Bond's attendance at the table.

The script keeps the current post-AIDS trend of limiting Bond's sexual conquests to the single-digits, but his primary love interest is the listless Eva Green, a pretty girl with no apparent personality who we are supposed to buy as a government accountant, an occupation that has the same credibility as a Swedish Playboy playmate playing a nuclear physicist in an old I Spy episode. Green's character has no chemistry with the dour Craig (at one point she tells him that he would be more of a man than anyone she ever met if he were whittled down to just a smile and his little finger – a peculiar inventory since Craig never seems to smile during the course of the entire movie) and it is difficult to accept many of the plot turns that result from the romance. The film also provides one of the least charismatic villains in Bond history in the person of Mads Mikkelsen, a quiet man whose only quirks seem to be bleeding from his eyes and a propensity for graphic displays of cock-and-ball torture (where is Goldfinger's laser beam when we need it?).
5/10
Overrated to the Max
carologletree17 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film was a response to many people feeling that "Die Another Day" is too over-the-top and too ridiculous, even for Bond. They intended to bring the series back to its roots. People loved this movie, but I really don't see why. As a huge James Bond fan, this film is pretty much free of what makes the Bond series fun.

The new Bond is Daniel Craig. He would get better later in his tenure as Bond, but here he isn't very appealing. He is more like Jason Bourne than Bond, and he comes off as too much of a thug.

The film itself is incredibly boring. 3/4 of the movie is nothing but poker playing. Mads Mikkelsen as LeChiffre is a pretty dull villain, and there are some parts of the movie that are just way too violent.

No Q, no Moneypenny, no humor, no gadgets, and most of all, no fun. I don't care if this was closer to Fleming's Bond, this was just not enjoyable at all.

The film does have some saving graces. For one, Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is a strong contender for best Bond girl ever. She's utterly beautiful and has an engaging personality. This is the first time since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" that Bond was truly in love.

The action in the last act of the film is thrilling, and "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell is a personal favorite of mine. Judi Dench was her usual great self as M.

These saving graces make this a mediocre film instead of a terrible one.

RATING: C
10/10
The names Craig....Daniel Craig. Craig IS 007!!
Darkimus_Prime22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have to admit. In the beginning I was a doubter of Craig's ability. The press set him up badly, using bad pictures to shed a bad light on him, I didn't think he was the man for the role that was until the teaser trailer. I then started to realise how good he was, and boy was he good!! Daniel Craig has reset the standards for Bond. Moving away from the 'pretty boy' Bond look that Pierce Brosnan brought to the series, Craig takes Bond to his roots.

He shows that he isn't superman. Bond DOES get injured (he DOES make genuine mistakes) and it takes his relationships with the other characters to a whole other level and puts them in a new light.

Craig is a gritty Bond, he's a freshly promoted 00 agent with no experience. He's a ' half hit man half monk This is the wake up call the Bond series has needed for too long. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would highly recommend it to any fan of the James Bond series.

I hope that Craig will return as Bond in the next film, and that this is the start of a new series.

Well done 007, you've finally grown up
1/10
Horrible....no flow at all
lmmsj4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When the movie first starts, you think that it is something of a terrorist plot with the code name of ellipse and the constant chase scene from one place to another. The stunt work is fabulous and I have to admit I have never seen anything quite like it, but then the story makes no sense. We are not told why he is after the frenchman to start with. We think we are following the plot at the airport when all of the sudden we are taken elsewhere to the casino with no apparent idea of why he is in this game. The frenchman loses all the money on the stock market on purpose?? and then he plays in a high stakes poker game. Also, the gianni character..mathis..he is completely out of place. We don't know what he is supposed to be doing. Also if the boy friend of vesper is being held for ransom, and she is a high level British government worker from the treasury representing the money factor, don't you think they would know about her background? She would have to have some type of security clearance and she already had access to the money so why would she go through the charade of having to play the part at the poker game. I was very disappointed and I have to say it was the worst bond film yet.
9/10
Here It Is/Where It All Began
Hitchcoc8 January 2017
This Bond film is well written and exciting, It shows us the way that the 007 legend began. We find how Bond takes advantage of a situation to make himself the guy with the license to kill. He begins to battle wits with the villain, LeChifre, who is in the center of international finance. He is also a gambler who is managing to make one hundred percent on his investments, Bond has to use every manner of effort to confront the barriers placed before him, including winning at cards. I remember the asinine first Hollywood version of this book, which came in the wake of some of the best "serious" Bond films. It had comedians Peter Sellers and Woody Allen and more silliness than you could shake a stick at. One thing I noticed is that the card game played was poker. In the book and the original movie, he plays Baccarat. Of course, hardly any Americans understand this game. In the first film there is a dramatic moment when a card is turned over and Bond wins...to this day, I don't know why!
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig is great as Bond
Tweekums16 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a few disappointing films it looked like the the Bond franchise may have died after the unremarkable "Die Another Day", thankfully somebody had the bright idea of taking Bond back to his roots and rebooting the series with a story based on the first of Ian Flemming's novels. Gone are the stream of one liners, excessive gadgets and thankfully there is no obvious CGI either. We still have lots of action and it looks real and there is a sense that Bond isn't invincible, it looks like he is really suffering. Some may feel that seeing a naked Bond being tortured in a particularly gruelling scene doesn't belong in a Bond film however this scene is taken from the book.

After an opening where we see Bond earn his Double O status and the opening song we see the main bad guy, Le Chiffre, take delivery of a large sum of money from an African warlord, he invests in a way that in order to make money a promising aircraft manufacturers shares must tumble rather. Bond meanwhile is on the trail of a bomber in Madagascar while he is low level a message stored on his phone leads Bond to the Bahamas where he discovers a plot to destroy a prototype aircraft in Miami. Not surprisingly Bond foils this in spectacular fashion which leaves Le Chiffre desperately short of cash. He attempts to get it back in a high stakes poker game at the titular Casino Royale. Bond of course is sent in to clear him out in an attempt to force Le Chiffre to come over to MI6 and disclose his connections. For this mission Bond is joined by Vesper Lynd from the Treasury who is initially unimpressed with Bond. Once the game starts it becomes apparent that Le Chiffre is both a good player and somebody willing to take desperate measures to make sure he wins.

Daniel Craig makes a fantastic impression in his first outing as Bond in one of the best Bond films in decades, he is ably supported by Eva Green who plays Vesper and Mads Mikkelsen who plays Le Chiffre. I wouldn't normally comment on opening credits but Bond is different; gone are the scantily clad ladies in silhouette being replaced by stylised men in dinner jackets and images of cards and roulette wheels, accompanied by a good song I liked the new style. While I was disappointed by the next film in the series this shows that Craig has what it takes to play Bond and I'm sure his later outings in the role will be worth watching.
3/10
The first "Bond" movie that's bored me to tears...
raraavis-28 February 2008
Bond for the mindless set: no class, no elegance, no humor, a Bond who looks extremely ill at ease in a dinner jacket, violence for violence's sake, endless explosions and fights... in fact, just another car-chases-explosions-and-guns film of the kind that Hollywood cranks out by the dozen, even if this one wasn't made in Hollywood. I yawned through it and left before the end.

This movie has been clearly aimed at a different market, at a public that consumes tons of popcorn and chats on mobiles (cellphones) while watching a movie. It is, you might say, a "chav" Bond. Daniel Craig would be more believable as a truck driver than as a classy character such as the real Bond we all knew and loved.

If you are a Bond fan, stay away from this garbage.
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
May contain spoilers - Ever watch Poker for 2 1/2 hours?
brsmarc13 December 2006
So what are the commonalities between CR 2006 and CR 1967...well the comparisons are easy to see. In each there was "no one" playing Bond, neither one was funny and each was a meandering, spoof of a Classic iconic movie formula. The James Bond themes and prototypical characters and plot lines are so heavily ingrained in our culture that many people who have never seen a Bond film "know" the Bond elements. The girls, the gadgets, the fast cars, the uber-villains, the self effacing humor and none too subtle sexual (and blatantly sexist) innuendo manifest in the names of many of the female characters.

So why would someone want to "kill the goose that laid the golden egg"?.

One can only wonder what committee was formed to create, cast, write, market and produce this generally very unsatisfying, overly complex and essentially boring storyline.

As a life long Bond fan I can easily put this movie pretty near the bottom of Bond movies that didn't work out. Not counting the disappointment from the anticipation of seeing "how Bond became Bond" - punctuated with the pathetic and melodramatic movie's last line, "Bond...James Bond" - I found myself confused by the thematic, visual and plot elements which seemed to be telling the "Bond Story" forward and backward at the same time. The whole notion, set up in the beginning of the film when we see Bond earning his 007 status with his 2nd kill, that this is the beginning of what we now know as the Bond legend is contradicted with all sorts of contemporary visual, metaphorical and technical elements ( a shot of the recently built Atlantis hotel in the Bahamas, the EXTENSIVE use of MODERN cell phone (which are entirely critical to the storyline), the "wink, wink - nudge, nudge" allusion to female sexist names - when he tells Eva Green's character "Vesper Lynd" that her cover name on assignment is 'Stephanie Broadchest') all add to the backdrop of the big showdown between Bond and his nemesis Le Chiffre ("The Figure") in their "spine tingling" Texas hold 'em high stakes card game. Are you kidding? Bond playing Texas hold 'em poker. Until this film I never knew I could watch a game of Poker for two and a half hours - (yawn) how exciting.

Presumably, this was because of the huge appeal of this game to today's modern audience and the obvious conclusion that Bond would have preferred it to every other damn games of chance he played in ALL the other Bond films.

I'm hoping in the next one that Bond has a big adventure with Le Figure in anticipation of the big deadly lawn mowing competition...then I can watch grass grow for two hours (unless the producers decide to set another running time record).

On the positive side (yes there were positives), I was please to see the restrained and graphically creative retro-styling of the opening titles. Giving the opening a very 60's Peter Maxish (sort of) feel and loved the flashbacks in the beginning of Bond's first kill shot in somewhat grainy black and white and inter-cut with the dark, somber and foreboding lead up to his 2nd kill (which earned him his 007 status).

It was also intriguing to see a young Bond go "off the map" and reek havoc in a guerrilla base with some fantastic low tech chases and high wire stunts and fighting. It was a refreshing and yet perfectly logical "opening fight/escape" that Bond became known for. It was also great to see the female characters being more substantial and real and not simply the "same old" stereotypes (since his legend was far from established at this point). It also made sense that a young Bond would stumble and not necessarily be able to smoothly get around every situation. And finally, the locales and cinematography was great...not too slick and shiny and just a bit "old school".

"M" / Judi Densch was, of course, fantastic as usual but were it not for her it would have seemed like: "hey who the hell stole James Bond and replaced it with all these unknown actors". No Moneypenny, No Q, and a Felix Leiter whose lines made him seem more like: "if I say I work for the CIA then you need to believe me, please" and Daniel Craig showed the acting range of a cardboard cutout, I would have been happier if they just put up a 8x10 glossy of Pierce Brosnan whenever it was time to see Craig.

In short, set your expectations low and be ready to spend a lot of time watching Poker
My name is Bland -----,James Bland
Herag20 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Vodka Martini-Shaken or stirred? I don't care a damn! Why not? The Chase&Action Sequnce on the crane is just incredible-some of the best I have seen in a Bond Movie. So is the scene on the tarmac of the Airport. But Daniel Craig is too mechanical with no personality. He is tall and looks good in a tux-so does a penguin. There is no Villain with a bad Russian accent(Bond-do you expect me to talk? No,I expecthh you tto diiie Missta Bond,) or a bald guy in Nehru jacket in a swing chair smothering kittens (I am expecting you Mr. Bond,Would you like drowning lessons in my shark tank Mr. Bond?) or a Giant with bad teeth and an IQ of a teenage mutant ninja turtle, walking out of smoldering ruins. One more thing, when I am betting Ten Mil. on a game of Poker,I don't want a bearded guy flirting with my girl, talk hush hush within ten feet of me-I would have him thrown off the table and do away with him, sooner than this happens in the movie.The music is not the thrillingly haunting, 007 Bond music-except over the titles. This alone puts a damper on the proceedings. The location photography is good. This Bond gets tortured more than any Bond. Is this torture legal? for a Bond Movie? Then again why are we seeing Bond in a wheel chair? even if he is seen in posh locale? Now what kind of impression does this give to future Bonds?
3/10
In a word, drivel
squicker28 February 2008
In a word, drivel. But in more than one word...

The film takes place at the beginning of Bond's career, although this is strangely in the 00's not the 60's. Craig is a good Bond, he dispenses with the 'humour' of the previous incarnations. This is a good thing, as what masquerades for 'humour' in previous Bond films may perhaps make an 8 year old laugh, but beyond that i think having a lobotomy is a pre-requisite.

The film plays like some dreadful advert for 'poor' people to watch glimpes of a lifestyle they'll never have, thank f**k. Woohoo, $40,000,000 in one hand of poker, we're all supposed to say 'wow', at that point of course. I yawned.

And talking of adverts, the product placement is overbearing. Do you have an Aston that flips on it's roof because you turn the steering at speed? I'll take 10 please.

I didn't care about the characters one iota. In fact, it just seemed like noise whenever they actually did or said anything.

OK, I know it's a Bond film not the Diving Bell and the Butterfly. I know it's wallpaper, but sometimes, can we not be given wallpaper that rises above the woodchip? Well, of course we can. We get top quality 'spy' action\thrillers like the Bourne series. It is possible to make armchair thrillers that thrill and engage. Sadly the makers of Casino Royale have yet to go to that particular movie class.

What we have here is a vulgar and mindless romp whose sole grace, Craig, cannot catapult beyond the feeble boundaries of mediocrity.

Avoid.

Ben
6/10
Decent, but ultimately a disappointment
BroadswordCallinDannyBoy17 November 2006
The famous secret agent's first mission as a '00' agent. He must win a high stakes poker game at a luxurious casino in order to thwart the operations of Le Chiffre, an elusive criminal who funds the world's most dangerous and richest terrorists by playing the stock market.

It has been 4 years since everyone's favorite spy has been on an assignment and here he is, back on the job. Well, continuity-wise, this is a flashback in the series as it is Bond's first mission as 007, but for fans that should hardly matter, since it's all about seeing Bond doing what he does best. And Daniel Craig fits the role quite well with his more rugged approach to the role. He's suave and handsome like the previous actors who have played the spy, but is undoubtedly better at portraying the cold-hearted nature of Bond's job. The rugged looks, cold expression, and intense fight scenes push Bond into a slightly more realistic world and the action is hardly glamorized here. It is just serious and intense stuff, no holds barred. Having seen all the other Bond movies, I have never seen Bond so bloody or have that "holyshit that nearly killed me" look.

However, that is not the Bond that people have come to love for the past 40+ years. Another problem is the plot. It is a pretty big deviation from the previous Bond formula - very little gadgets, no Q, though continuity-wise within the series this makes sense, but gives the film a sense of dullness especially since it takes place in present day, not 1962 when gadgets were in fact rare. Also the villain and his presentation is a huge disappointment. Bond plots have usually revolved around hot political topics (oil reserves, ethics of news reporting, drugs, terrorism), but in their own fun way, and here we get another interesting topic - funding for terrorists. But the film never takes it to the fun and ridiculous heights that Bond has been to before. The plot seems contrived and, especially by the end, confusing and silly. Even as a Bond film it doesn't hold enough water as it should with the story and characters taking some really dumb turns by showing James Bond as a 3D character with inner and outer struggle. Bond has only outer struggle - stop the villain. It's what makes him an enjoyable escapist character. Also the big card game (of Texas Holdem, nonetheless) is shown in a surprisingly dull manner with little style and barely enough tension to merit such a key moment.

Then there is the ending, which is tuned for the next entry in the same vein as many other blockbusters films of today. That is yet another deviation from the Bond formula. Innovation is good, but the fact of the matter is Bond is formulaic and has been for over 40 enjoyable years. Even Shakespeare's sonnets are formulaic so formula isn't bad, it's the playing with the details and creating new rhythms and rhymes while presenting new ideas is what fans want.

Casino Royale senselessly tries to show Bond as a more realistic character which he is most definitely not, but it remains a fairly good action film that spares the audience CGI that Die Another Day, for instance, overused. --- 6/10

Rated PG-13 for violence and intense action
3/10
Gambled and lost
barbara-czarniawska9 January 2007
I have been told that the Italian audiences are complaining that Bond has become "americanized"; that it lost all its "Britishness". I recognize the symptoms but do not agree with the diagnosis.

The allure of the earlier Bond movies was double: absurdity of the action and wit of the dialog. Now the action has been done much more realistic, situated in recognizable contexts. As a result, a spectator watching one of the usual chases starts to wonder whether the British government reimburses the property damages caused by its agents in the course of action in developing countries. A laudable and politically correct reflection, but quite out of place during a Bond movie.

As to the witty dialog, it is there, but needs to be delivered. Alas, both Stallone and Schwarzenegger can be much funnier that Daniel Craig (who belongs to the same heavy weight category of actors). The delivery is never deadpan; it is always dead. I do hope, for his peace of mind, that Sean Connery did not hear the "Bond. The name is James Bond" line in this movie.

The poker scenes are no doubt thrilling to poker-players; to non-poker players, these are exactly the scenes that should be shortened to make the movie a regular length.

All in all, the best is the animation introducing the film. Incredibly imaginative! Perhaps the next Bond movie should be animated from the beginning to the end?
1/10
Autistic 007 is James Bond without the Gadgets
parhat20 November 2006
Bond is not too bright. Get fooled, looses in casino, a terrible driver, slow witted, and plenty of luck. He cannot speak beyond 10 words. Looks autistic. Rainman IS "James Blonde". Reminds me of a construction worker ruffian or some football hooligans who likes masochistic sex, instead of the real Bond.

Can we learn from him from this super spy? Well yes. Low I.Q., makes mistakes all the time and the only thing he us successful is to shoot guns at something that will explode. He could be an Olympic marathon runner for all I care, but he is no Bond.

Where is the suave? I must admit the last Bond film was way too much gadgets. In this movie it is no gadget at all. They are using that Scorpion King formula again, the one movie they done to do away with the Mummy's II special effect.

He can easily play James Bond 007 20,000 B.C. for all I care. Matt Damon could easily do a better job then this semi autistic guy, at least he has form and smarts, despite being short, while this guy is just big and dumb. His form of fighting is hardly deadly. He fights like a girl. His form of fighting and his looks reminds me of Popeye. I wished he would smoke a pipe and had Olive Oyl as his girlfriend. He looks more like hooligans fighting in a soccer match.

I would have given this movie a much higher score if it was NOT 007. As a 007, you must live on certain expectation, the most important factor of a super spy has smarts, not stupidity. Poisoning him is the easiest thing in the world. Some gadgets are still important in spy business but this guy manages to jump around like a monkey. One was a fat black monkey and this is a skinny blond monkey. A great combination of monkey versus monkey. Ian Fleming is probably turning over his grave if he sees this!
James Bond at his best! *MINOR SPOILERS*
Dingataca29 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is a a new take on the 007 series. Here we see Bond for the very first time, and Daniel Craig does such a fantastic job. Craig plays Bond just as he acquires he 007 status, this is the first story of Bond - Bond is a novice. Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond was a very raw character who doesn't fit the 007 mould and still has to find his feet, his place, his confidence. Usually Bond's portrayal is more rugged though suave, not raw.

I will have to repeat myself over and over until I bore you, about my love for Daniel Craig's performance in this movie. Craig as James Bond is one of the most amazing performances I have seen of 2006 and 2007 put together in Hollywood. Never before has a Bond been so humane, so understandable, so dashing. Craig not only has incredibly gorgeous good looks, but he can act superbly and I cannot stress more how much he fits the character of James Bond! This is undoubtedly his best performance and I sincerely hope he will remain as Bond for a long time and produce more great 007 movies. I LOVE him in this movie...:)

The stunts in Casino Royale are another impressive feature. Riveting and thrilling, Casino Royale will glue you to your seat, eagerly waiting for more. Thankfully it doesn't disappoint and gives the audience fantastic scenes throughout. Casino Royale starts and finishes on a good note. A very memorable scene to me personally is the naked, pain-stricken James receiving punishment from Le Chiffre.

Vesper Lynd, the new Bond girl, played by Eva Green was also a commendable performance. She is very different compared to any other "Bond Girl". Vesper Lynd is an equal to Bond, they have the same sense of humour, the same style, the same way of thinking. After all that, they even have a great chemistry! Vesper is beauty and brains. Craig and Green have a connection on screen, they seem to gel very well and all their scenes together are memorable and great to watch. My favourite scene of them together would be their first meeting in the train, exchanging sarcastic remarks and witty jokes to each other. Eva Green truly is a Bond girl, and a remarkable one at that. She became Vesper Lynd, and had some of the best lines in the whole film.

Judi Dench as the irritable M was, as always, fantastic. She is one of the only actresses of her age group that I enjoy watching apart from Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren. She is immortalised as M. Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre was also a great performer, the cold eyes, the bone-chilling smile, the greasy hair; he does it all and in my opinion is one of the best villains of the decade. Caterina Murino as Solange was also decent enough.

What I like best about this film is that James Bond is a very humane character, he has feelings, he fell in love for crying out loud, and he was even willing to give up his job for his love. He is not a agent with a heart of stone, he is a young man finding himself and maturing with time. As the movie progresses, the story gets more serious and the thrilling meter grows higher and higher. The tension I felt before the Poker game was indescribable.

One more very interesting point in this movie is how James Bond was so different from every other Bond movie. He was immature, not fully ready for what he was taking on (of course he acquires it all as time goes on). For example, when Bond was asked whether he likes his martini shaken or stirred, he said "Does it looks like I give a damn". And honestly, NO Bond worth his pedigree would say that, because Bond ALWAYS likes his martini shaken, not stirred, in every movie of his. This showed Bond had a lot of growing up to do, before becoming what he is - a fantastic secret agent.

To sum it up, Casino Royale provides star-studded performances, TERRIFIC stunts that will clench your fists, a story that will stir your soul, and a Bond that you will never forget. This is a masterpiece.

The name's Bond. James Bond.
4/10
dour Bond movie, no fun at all
strezise29 May 2007
This was a dour and rather serious Bond movie. I guess I like these movies to be fun: the plots are ludicrous, but they become tolerable if they are backed up with entertaining characters and spectacle. This Bond had neither in the quantities I'm used to or that the plot, such as it was, required. Daniel Craig, the new Bond, has two or three expressions, one of which is a bovine grin that is supposed to be the mark of the hard man. He is stretched at one point by a a pretty vile torture scene that was, by any standards, unedifying; but as an actor Craig came through. Into the final act the film fizzles out completely with a lengthy anti-climax that is not seriously lifted by the spectacle in Venice or the damp squib of an ending. We also lose out on the good bits that eke out the slender plot lines of Bond movies, such as the inimitable contribution Judi Dench might have made as M and the usual explanation of new gadgets, which we don't get at all. As for the new seriousness and greater respect for women -- no silhouetted nudity in the opening titles -- that's all very well, but it would have been gratifying to find something taking the place of the usual clichés. I thought this Bond was cold, often dull, and lacking any real narrative drive. Very disappointing.
5/10
my notes
FeastMode26 June 2019
Meh. I just didn't think it was that good. action was decent. acting was good. story was ok but anticlimactic. it's missing the essence of what I think a bond movie is (2 viewings)
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond Reboot
sohmflooring27 November 2006
Well...it wasn't horrible, but it certainly wasn't a Bond film, as I have come to think of them and of the Bond character in particular. Perhaps this ought to have been 'Casino Royale' introducing Joe Blow 008, or anyone other than James Bond 007. You've got an actor reminiscent of Steve McQueen who is still young looking and strong...a little 'thugish'...who runs into this film and runs around an awful lot avoiding death and (it seems) a million bullets at almost every turn.

I said I'd be running for the exit if EON put out a 'serious' Bond film or one that took itself or the Bond character too seriously. I stayed for all of it, although the action sequences became a little tedious at times. Gone is most of the fun, in my opinion.

Is it good film-making? Technically it's quite good. Only a few green screen effects that are awful, but they are only a few seconds in length and as soon as you become aware of the trick...they're gone.

The movie begins with a chase sequence that reminded me of the reality TV show 'Fear Factor'. It is very clever and well done.

The title sequence, although pretty to watch, is also a departure from the classic 007 title format. There are no female forms, no female faces, no vignettes of scenes in the movie, unless you consider playing cards and gun play vignettes of this movie. That was disappointing at the outset.

Also disappointing is the absence of the unbelievable gadgets from Q Branch. What you have in this movie are cellphones that take a beating and keep on working, BlackBerry-type devices that do the same thing and a medical gadget that apparently was produced by the low ball bidder for the British Secret Service.

I can't say much else that would not include spoilers, so I'll stop here.

If you liked 'Armageddon' (not a Bond film), you'll probably like this one. I hated 'Armageddon' and just tolerated this 'almost too serious' Bond movie. If you want an overly-complicated plot line, lots of action and noise, then you're going to love this movie.

OK, I've given my initial comments time to age and several months later now I have to downgrade my rating to a (1). I can't ever imagine watching this thing again for any reason. Good technical film-making, but just awful any other way you look at it.

If the Bond genre is going to be more of the same with the same actor, then the series is finished, at least for me. I will not go see another Bond film of the same 'serious' nature with this new Bond actor. It would just be a waste of time and my entertainment dollar.
10/10
One of the best movies of the year? Oh yes.
superduperspit17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reboot, Re-Imagining, Remake, whatever you want to call it, it was pretty clear that the James Bond franchise had reached a crossroads of late and when Casino Royale was announced it seemed in to be a great opportunity and great risk. The Brosnan era, which had started with such great promise in the gritty action of Goldeneye, had ended in the realm of self-parody and farce with the cartoon antics of Die Another Day. Props like the truly idiotic invisible car conjured up images of the worse excesses of the Roger Moore era, in a way it was Brosnans Moonraker, a movie bereft of any real originality or spark. Royale's makers promised a Bond for the 21st century, realistic, cold, and believable. In theory this seemed to be what the franchise needed until you remember the last time this approach was tried in the ill received Dalton Bond's of The Living Daylights and License to Kill. While this reviewer enjoyed the Dalton entries to the series, it was clear from the box office performances that the rest of the general public were generally cold to the idea of a real-life style Bond. Cartoon Bond had run its course but the diametric opposite wasn't welcome either. But time is a great changer of opinion so the question that has to be asked, is the general moviegoer ready for a new style of Bond? And does Casino Royale and the rugged unconventional face of the new Bond Daniel Craig deliver the goods? The answers to both questions are resoundingly yes and it is quite possibly one of the best Bonds ever committed to the screen.

From the opening scenes this Bond sets out its stall as we witness Craig's Bond earn his 007 stripes in brutally cold kills in a public bathroom and office, the black and white camera-work bleeding out any piece of unrealistic air. This is a Bond devoid of novelty Gadgets, cheap quips and one who pointedly doesn't give a damn if his Martini is shaken or stirred. Leading on from the Chris Cornell penned theme song and conceptual title sequence the film flies straight into action, as Bond gets busy flexing his muscles in a breathtaking chase sequence. It's raw and exhilarating to watch and sets up the pace for the rest of the movie. Bond is a raw rookie who shows a reckless nature that serves to infuriate Judy Dench's M, who sees him as a cold killer with a lack of discretion. Craig plays the cold detachment perfectly. He's committed to his job and is very good at it but it is only out of not knowing what else to do. As he says himself "I wouldn't know what an honest job is".

The locations are suitable varied and interesting ranging from the soft beaches of The Bahamas to the bustle of Miami and on to the picturesque settings of Montenegro. Miami's scenes include the airport action sequence spied in the trailer which although slightly redundant to the main plot still show off Craig's physical acting chops and acts as a highly entertaining interlude to the main plot of Bond tracking down La Chiffre, a known funder of international terrorists. It must be said that in the pantheon of Bond villains Chiffre isn't the most menacing. I mean how much of an impact can a man who bleeds out of a dead eye have but he does serve his purpose as Bonds opponent with functional efficiency and his cold manner helps add tension to the immensely enjoyable poker scenes.

It's in these scenes that Bonds character is fleshed out in a manner not seen since License to Kill. The interplay between Bond and Eva Green's Vesper Lynds crackle's with energy. The writing of Paul Haggis is clearly in play in many of these scenes as there is a clear smoothness to the dialogue not normally seen in a Bond movie. Bond shows himself to be a slightly bitter man who never lets anybody in and it's a real pleasure to watch Green's Lynd crack his cold exterior.

For fans of the original novel the torture scene also deserves a mention. If you haven't read the book then think of something like the Syriana style of torture only with a different body part in danger and you'll be close. It's easily one of the most brutal scenes you are ever likely to see in a Bond movie and will have many members of the audience wincing in pain.

By the time of the tragic climax it's pretty clear this Bond has rescued the franchise from its dull torpor and then some. Everything in this movie works and this reviewer is still stunned at how good it is. Craig leaves the trademark line to the last scene and when it's finally delivered you're left wanting more. From this evidence Bonds next installment can't come soon enough.

One of the best movies of the year? Oh Yes.

5/5.

Review posted by Gulli on boxofficefanatic.com
5/10
James Bond is Dead and where is Q?
pinbyte23 March 2007
They started messing with the 'formula' for a James Bond film in the last movie, and now they have just done away with it almost entirely in Casino Royale. I fear we shall never again see the fun, over the top villains, gadgets, and secret hideouts. The charismatic and impenetrable James Bond is dead. The franchise as it is often called, is no longer.

Sure, the bulk of the James Bond movies were a bit silly. That is why you take a special suspension of disbelief pill before you watch and just enjoy. The makers of this (and also the last film) made the mistake of humanizing James Bond. Clearly, many liked it, but I was disappointed. My other half was so disappointed that she has vowed not to even consider the next installment.

Whether or not true to the books, as I have heard this one is more so, the James Bond MOVIE franchise is well established. I understand that times change and even an established franchise I suppose must adapt, I am not happy with it. The Sean Connery and Roger Moore films epitomize what a James Bond 007 film ought to be.

The invulnerable character with chiseled good looks, suave and debonair portrayed in those films is what I have come to expect to see in a film labeled with this brand. To see him humanized and being treated seriously is all wrong. If they wanted to do this, could they not have invented 'Brad Strong 006' or something. The older films have been light and fun and full of surprises.

Sure, Casino Royale has managed to capture some of the requisite elements of a quintessential James Bond film, but has done enough outside of the formula to ruin it for me. There was no 'Q' sequence, a part of the older films that I really enjoyed. The 'M' sequences were too serious for me. The 'look and feel' of James Bond has been done away with by the new actor.

I cannot actually call this a bad film. If I had not seen any 007 movie outside of this one, I might have given it a 6 or 7. In light of the other movies, I call it a 2 or 3. But due to some great action sequences, fabulous locations, and realistic cinematography, I must begrudgingly award it a 5/10.

Ultimately, as a fan of the old James Bond, I suspect I would have enjoyed my precious 2.5 hours much more if I had just watched "You Only Live Twice" or "Moonraker" for the 10th time. If you are looking for the savior faire portrayed in the James Bond of the past, you will be disappointed with this film as I have been.
4/10
Casino Royale-Downward Flush Quickly *1/2
edwagreen31 March 2007
Disappointing James Bond thriller.

James Craig comes across as a mean, nasty person and Judi Dench is finally given a bigger role as M. (Bernard Lee must be turning over.) I guess they finally had to reward Ms. Dench for her increasing number of Oscar nominations.

Craig is good in the chase scenes and that's about all that this film has going for it. The story is somewhat confusing regarding the aftermath of 9/11 and airplane stocks. It would be better if Hollywood stopped milking Sept. 11, 2001.

Craig, as Bond, lacks the suave, debonair feeling depicted by Roger Moore and Sean Connery. He also looks older than he should look in certain scenes.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not great not terrible
margineanvladdaniel17 October 2021
The action was not exaggerated like in other action movies franchises and the actors were good. I can't give a better rating because I don't like the story and the version of Bond, so I'm subjective. Nevertheless, I'm a Bond movie fan so I'm rewacthing them all and it will be a blast!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond or Bourne
BandSAboutMovies22 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale goes back to the beginning, with Daniel Craig playing a rougher and more brusque Bond at the start of his career As for the story, Eon Productions won the rights in 1999 after Sony Pictures Entertainment exchanged them for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's rights to Spider-Man.

How odd that 40 years into Bond, it is he - and not a woman - rising nearly nude from the sea? I still think of Craig as the new Bond, despite him owning the role for nearly 14 years.

In this film, we meet the new Bond, watch as he gains 00 status and then falls for - and loses - Vesper Lynn (Eva Green) as he is on the trail of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world's terrorists.

Bond even goes as far to quit MI6 over love in this movie and pays the price. At the end, he finally says his catchphrase, "The name's Bond. James Bond," before coldly dispatching of a villain.

Between the parkour scene and the emphasis on violence over gadgetry, this was a new Bond that was more Jason Bourne than Roger Moore. For a fanbase that was violently opposed to Craig as their hero, things have settled down over time.

This is the first time that the theme of a Bond movie - Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" - didn't appear on the soundtrack. It's also the only Bond film other than Live and Let Die where Q doesn't appear.
1/10
What the bloody hell was this?
Lord_of_TERROR4 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
37 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is terrible. The plot barely makes sense, Daniel Craig pouts far more than any human (let alone man) should, there's no good action scenes, the best sequence of the movie looks like an extended Volvo ad and the film has a 45 minute poker sequence in the middle that's no better than Celebrity Poker off the TV, except of course when i watch it on TV i don't know who's going to win. This film was a huge let down. It was hard to imagine that I would look back on the Pierce Brosnan days with fond memories but somehow the makers of this latest debacle have achieved it. But worst of all, worse than the wooden dialogue and bizarre attempt at love story, worse than all that was that there was not a single bad guy worth his salt in the whole movie. If the world doesn't have super villains it surely doesn't need super spies either.
10/10
Bond with a touch of the the Bourne supremacy
aravindh_v12 November 2006
I saw this at a special premiere and i was amazed. having never been a Bond fan i wasn't really expecting much from this. After watching Brosnans invisible car in the previous incarnation I thought it could only get worse. How wrong was I! this film is gritty and sharp. the dialogue is sharp and well thought out with Daniel Craig being the DEFINITIVE Bond. He exudes confidant menace. They have gone back to basics with this Bond ie character and dialogue driven and not thankfully gadget driven. Not only is it the best bond film out so far its one of the years best films out. They have borrowed some elements from the Bourne series of films which is long overdue on the franchise, more realistic fight sequences and with Daniel Craig actually looking like a physically capable man instead of the middle aged paunch of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan who both quite frankly couldn't beat up a Ritz cracker.
455 out of 784 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Brazen Bond is a put off
view_and_review11 June 2008
I am not too particular about James Bond anyway, but someone did recommend Casino Royale to me. I've always seen James Bond as a shallow pretty boy European that gets the woman and the bad guy. This movie I stopped 20 minutes in though. My reasoning for turning it off will not resonate with some if not most of you, nor do I expect it to, but it is my review and my opinion. The fact is, I have a particular abhorrence of movies in which a White man goes into Africa and snatches Black people, whether the said African is a criminal or not. Call it a historical sore spot but I just didn't like it. It would be an egregious crime against humanity if an African marched into England or America shooting up White people just to apprehend a criminal.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Daniel Craig is Horrible!!!
dustinhunter70725 March 2007
I was expecting a masterpiece out of this movie, but all I got was a "pretty boy" actor who thought he could live up to the role of James Bond in which he failed miserably. Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond I've seen and Sean Connery was pretty good too, but they must have been really desperate for a new Bond if they chose Daniel Craig over all the other amazing actors such as Jason Statham and Gerard Butler.

Overall, I give this movie a 4 out of 10 because the first hour was pretty good but the rest just sucked. Daniel Craig is really stuck on himself and its pathetic. If you are a true Bond fan, avoid this piece of garbage.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
boring ... and I don't like this Bond either
GODisaRefuge5 May 2007
Sean Connery and Roger Moore did a fantastic job. And how many different Bond actors have there been since those 2 guys? Gosh, I lost count. This new Bond doesn't cut it for me at all. He looked like a total dork in the beach scene when he was all wet. And those ears! They reminded me of dumbo.

As for the movie itself... Boring. Very slow moving. No high-tech gadgets to speak of, which is very odd for a Bond movie. And no Q. How disappointing. I think this Bond may appeal to the female audience because he is so politically correct when it comes to females. If that's what women want, then why don't they just change the franchise to be Jane Bond.

This is the worst Bond movie yet. And I've seen them all.
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad Jason Bourne Copy
ivanterry1011 January 2007
OK action film with bad dialog, coincidences and the most ridiculous game of poker I have seen. Critics are paid to point out the flaws in movies-which Bond films have in abundance but get away with it because they're "just" Bond films.

The scene on the train where Bond tries to read Moneypenny and vice versa made me feel like punching both of them along with the script writer and the director. It's one of the tackiest pieces of pretentious dialog I have ever seen. How this film got a 9.5 out of 10 in rottentomatoes.com when Harsh Times is called unrealistic is a mystery to me.

Better than other more recent Bond films in general (not hard) and for action sequences especially - but I still don't know why 007 climbs the scaffolding to follow the bomb maker instead of just following him from below. Although it's nothing that hasn't been done before and done better in the Bourne movies.

Also how does Bond know that Moneypenny is running into a trap when she says she's going outside to meet Matheus? It then take weeks for M to ring Bond to ask where the 110 million dollars is. He sails to Venice stopping off at a beach or two and sends in his resignation before he gets the call. I'm giving it a 1 to put some context to the overall rating it gets from so many Muppet's, that give it a 10.

Egotistical nonsensical tripe.
8/10
royale flush
pookey5619 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this film began with what i consider to be the most insipid, forgettable bond song, and a villain with a SCAR. o no. but this guy weeps blood no less. a variation on a cliché. bond begins by chasing an incredibly fast, dexterous guy for no apparent reason. and of course, there's the crane scene. o no. but then, the film begins to get better. and better. and with the arrival of the exquisite Eva Green, even better. M is great as usual, although, if this was the start of Bond's career, M looks older. beautiful, but older. the poker scenes surprised me a bit but were lacking in suspense. When Bond tells Vesper he loves her, and resigns, we all know then what's in store for her. the question is, how does she die? it was a touching moment seeing Bond in love, almost leaving it all, and the sacrifices made all around. but, besides getting her out of that sinking cage, he didn't seem to try very hard to revive her (think, THE ABYSS). i would have kept trying. i can say this: Daniel Craig has a great body; Eva Green is as beautiful as ever; Judy Dench is a wonderful M; it's great seeing Giancarlo Giannini again, although his role in the film just didn't ring true; Le Chiffre is worse than creepy.... the most touching moments come at the end, when we discover the extent of Vesper Lynd's predicament and the sacrifices she made. and oddly enough, it set a ground work for why Bond so often loves them and leaves them.... This Bond had a great ensemble cast, some great action sequences, and a vaguely bland screen play. but i'd watch it again. after all, it IS Bond....James Bond....and Daniel Craig? this Bond, can ACT and act well. This wont necessarily make him my favorite Bond, but he is very very good here.
1/10
what was that about?
gupor19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
143 out of 297 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am not the biggest James Bond fan, but I have quite enjoyed the franchise. Until now. There are so many things in this film that do not make sense that I don't know where to begin.

First of all I am convinced that Daniel Craig had a hangover one day (one of many judging by his face) and was offered a role in the movie called Casino Royale about which he most certainly thought that it is a sequel to his well made Layer Cake, for which he would be perfect. A successful cocaine dealer working his way to be England's Mafia elite will suit him much better than the British suave top spy. The phrase: "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him" does not match the criteria. I could not help but laugh seeing him emerging from the water with his egg shaped head, the sticking out trans illuminating ears and the straw organized hair. I definitely did not want to be him. Only thing to redirect the concentration of a movie goer to something else was to put him in the gym for six months prior to the shooting of the movie.

Second of all I went to see this movie with a bit of objectivity, listening to critics saying that it is a very well made action movie. I probably went to see the wrong film. The only exiting action sequence is the free-running chase through the streets in Uganda. It involved the free running champion Sebastien Foucan where Craig's stunt was trying his best not to ruin the scene. Otherwise there are no new ideas no new camera angles and most of the scenes have been in the other movies before. The petrol tank truck chase on the airport runway is like a bad copy from the Raiders of the Lost ark. Harrison did a much better job and it was original.

The sequence where Bond is mistaken for a parking attendant is the only ray of bright witty humor Bond is supposed to have and is missing and again it was used in the movies so many times before. (The latest I remember by Vin Diesel in XXX) The whole scene was badly executed and with no follow up logic. Why would security guys run towards the car to find out what has happened when there are security cameras in the security room which was left open for Bond to use the equipment??? Don't even let me start on the car chase. Sorry, what car chase? Bond goes around a couple of curves and unintentionally (when was the last time Bond unintentionally?) wrecks the car. Yes he is a great actor, just watch his facial expression before the stunt man breaks the world record in "car flipping". Unforgettable.

Editing of the poker games in the casino is just amateurish. Cutting the fight scene in half to add a dialog from different surroundings just for the viewer to find out that "Mr. Bond has changed his shirt" is called home made editing.

Making the movie about the beginnings of James Bond earning his "00" status? You start with a black and white scene which really gives you an impression about the times before it all started. Good. You pick a 38 year old actor who looks "used". Bad. You give him no gadgets. Good. Except latest satellite navigation telephones and a high tech heart defibrillator which is a standard accessory of his latest model Aston Martin (by the way Mrs. Broccoli did you really think that invisible car previously was unrealistic?). Bad. Now you have a top spy so you give him an anti terrorist mission. Good. His task is to recover a mere 150 million. Bad. Can someone add this up for me? In conclusion this film is an average movie without any pace or plot, with no new action no leading actor or actress in that matter, no plot and no meaning at all.
4/10
Competent spy film. Not a Bond movie.
michaeljharvey17 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
While this is a competently done spy film, it seems more like an installment in the Jason Bourne series rather than a Bond adventure.

The idea of bringing gritty realism to a Bond tale just doesn't make sense. Bond films have always been over-the-top and done with a sense of humor. The character is never too serious, always composed and always one step ahead of everyone else. Bond is a man who can leap from a speeding car, grapple with a couple of thugs and still not get a wrinkle on his tuxedo. It's hard to evaluate Daniel Craig as Bond, because the character he's asked to play exhibits none of the traits we have come to expect. This "new" Bond is tortured by inner demons, doesn't have much to say and consistently lets the bad guys get the better of him. About the only thing that feels "right" here is the high-stakes poker game in a glamorous casino.

The fun and intricate action scenes are gone. Dramatic shootouts on skis in the Swiss Alps have been replaced with bloody fist fights in dark stairwells. Bond bleeds, gets tortured, is uncertain he can finish the mission and is often saved by pure luck. The creative and memorable gadgets are gone as well. The old Bond relied on cleverness, trickery and intelligence to escape situations. The new Bond relies mostly on brute force.

I'm all for updating the Bond series and getting a fresh perspective on things. Admittedly the movies had become a bit stale and predictable. However, this isn't the breath of fresh air that was needed. So much of what made the Bond character great has been abandoned. Everything this movie attempts is done ten times better by the Bourne Identity series.

Imagine if they created a "revised" Superman. He doesn't wear a costume or cape, can't fly, and is from Cleveland, Ohio rather than the planet Krypton. Is that still Superman? Some things just shouldn't be changed when it comes to classic characters.
4/10
A traitor on the Bond series!
alexissebastian18 November 2006
If you are a true Bond fan, be aware of the following:

1) James Bond is saved TWICE by other people. He is even saved from the villain by a mysterious character. Therefore, no more fun about "How is Bond gonna to pull out of this one?" 2) No Q 3) No Moneypenny 4) The plot: Bond must win at poker to avoid the terrorist to get the money. Without using any technology for cheating. The secret service -able to make submarine cars- can not steal the funds electronically? 5) He drives a Ford in one scene, for God's sake 6) The title song sucks, the singer is basically unknown 7) Bond is supposed to be "suave", like an ordinary gentleman. This Bond looks, really, more like one of his villains.

I really don't care if the producers wants to "freshen" the formula and return to the basics (that was the same excuse for the Dalton movies). Without the Bond elements, you don't have a Bond movie, you just have another action movie. Avoid it. Its the only way to force the producers to return to the fun and thrill of the series.
4/10
Bond gone far off the rails
freydis-e24 September 2009
I've never been a big fan of Bond and haven't bothered with it much since Connery, but I heard this was good so I took a look. What is good here is the mega-budget, making everything look expensive, the sustained production values – and, as always, Dame Judi. But in terms of acting, script and everything else…

Dan Craig wanders about, face set into an unchanging hard-man mask, showing nothing of his undoubted acting ability, and the support, Dench apart, aren't much better. The story, at least in the early part of the film, consists entirely of running about and shooting. When fifteen straight minutes of jumping around on top of cranes gave way to an apparently endless gun-battle (all for no explained reason) my attention wandered and I never really managed to get it back.

This film clearly thinks it's very gritty and cool, and some seem to agree, perhaps because it says Bond on the label. But the story is too ridiculous for grittiness. In fact it's an expensive but mediocre attempt at an action flick, po-faced throughout, with no hint of the style and wit which established and once defined this most successful of series. For Fleming's great creation to be reduced to sub-Willis-Diesel nonsense, without even the benefit of a Willis or a Diesel, is tragic.
8/10
A Nutshell Review: Casino Royale
DICK STEEL16 November 2006
In short, the answer is a resounding yes, and more. Daniel Craig brings to the table a sense of that everyday man, rather than the polished slickness of a seasoned spy with that double- oh license to kill. And understandably so, as Casino Royale is the first Ian Fleming book written about Bond, James Bond.

So it's back to the basics, back to the very first time of almost everything. There is no fancy futuristic gadget to assist Bond out of tight situations - he has to rely on his fists and bulging muscles and the ever reliable Walter PPK handgun. Although we have the beautiful Aston Martin as his wheels of choice, there is an incredible amount of running around on foot. M without Moneypenny, no gadgets and no Q (or R), the dry martini created on the fly, that's how basic Craig's Bond is. The trademarked opening, with the cliffhanger styled big stunts, the tracking gun barrel panning across the screen (now replaced with one quick shot set in a toilet!) are inconceivably missing. Even the theme song cum stylized opening credits is done without a gyrating female silhouette, something quite unthinkable for a formulaic Bond film!

But it's one heck of a refreshing change and feel to the franchise given the break from convention, after the successful stint by Pierce Brosnan built too much implausibility in the gadget department, and virtual indestructibility together with Q's lab hinging on a product placement overload. What you've read so far about Craig's Bond being a more physical and violent one, yes, you've read them right. He gets tortured, he gets injured, he even makes a lot of mistakes. But don't forget, like Batman Begins, this story tells of the time of how Bond became the renowned spy we all know, set just after he got promoted to double-oh status and earned his license to kill. He's wet behind the ears, a rookie in the business, and has a huge lesson to learn on trust and letting his guard down.

Which is where the Bond girls come in. While decorative, Casino Royale boasts Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), as THE femme fatale from the British Treasury sent to be Bond's bankroll as he tries to bring down chief villain Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) on the high stakes poker table of Casino Royale. You'll probably chuckle at the first time seeing Bond flirt with a trademarked decorative Bond chick, and it has this really awkward feel to it all. But with Vesper, you'll see how he bares his heart and soul for her, without trading too many sexual innuendos or impatiently trying to get inside her. It's probably something like first love, and after this episode, you'll probably begin to understand how his love-them-leave-them attitude towards beautiful woman developed. It's a cruel twist of fate in the love department that leaves you with some questions to ponder.

What about the story? It's nothing to shout about. Basically it's Bond up against Le Chiffre on the poker table, one which proves to be quite interesting to watch, but got dragged by too many meandering interruptions. The relationship and love scenes between Bond and Vesper feels extended in the longest Bond film to date (clocking in at 2 hours and 24 minutes), and does get mushy at times. But this I feel is the focus of Casino Royale, the microscope put onto Bond to see how he learns and develops his skills and persona. Though the main villain Le Chiffre looks sinister enough, there is a severe lack of world-dominating ambition, and doesn't reach the highs of Bond villains of the past. The lack of memorable villainous sidekicks too relegates the baddies to cardboard characters.

In short, Casino Royale builds its strength in providing a good way to bring about a change of actors into the Bond role by adapting Fleming's beginning, but really, while I think Craig will have a field day with this stint as Bond, I'll pity the next actor who has to take over him, without the safety net of going back to basics.
4/10
Reinvention?
alexx66823 January 2009
Let's consider for a moment what happened here. The producers of James Bond bet in favour of a reinvention of sorts. Out goes Pierce Brosnan, in comes Daniel Craig. So far, so good.

In simple terms this reinvention meant that the humour, camp and flamboyance got thrown out of the window, and the formula of the generic modern masculine action-film was applied instead (a la "Mission Impossible" and the "Bourne" films). The public responded, the critics declared the film a success.

For the next bond film, "Quantum of Solace", the producers thought they should repeat the formula of the modern-day hyper-action film. And why not? After all both public and critics had agreed that the "reinvention" of "Casino Royale" was well worthwhile. And guess what. "Quantum of Solace" received a lukewarm reception because.. it had strained too much from the traditional "cool" and cosmopolitan Bond formula.

What does that tell you?
2/10
Terrible, the worst Bond movie since Timothy Dalton as Bond
dioditto1 March 2007
Let me get this out of the way, this is the worst Bond movie since Timothy Dalton as Bond. Craig is fairly rugged, unpolished, it may suit the movie's purpose as the first Bond movie, but combine with a confusing plot line and odd pacing, plus a very long and boring casino scene, I must say this is THE WORST Bond movie ever. The story jumps around, the villain was not that villainous (only at most small time crook)...And there is no climax to speak of. There is no signature gadget to be seen in the movie, nor the essential "Q" and "Money penny" scene. They even lower the already low standard by allowing Bond to drive FORD !! An American car! What next?! An Asian Bond driving a Daewoo?? The film just simply devoid of any James Bond quality. The movie ends with a mystery from the confusing sub-plot that is unresolved. Very unsatisfying.

I felt like I am watching another movie.. maybe a movie about Mafia hit-man.

Terrible, terrible terrible. 2 Stars. (I would have gave it one if it wouldn't for Eva Green)
6/10
Bond reinvented: hits and misses
schaden_freude13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This latest installment of the Bond series marks yet another new face in the lead role. Bond is portrayed here as a slightly more fallible, less polished hero. I thoroughly enjoyed this take on the 007 character. Similar to what 2005's "Batman Begins" did for that franchise, this does for Ian Fleming's brainchild. We see a Bond who is not refined, often errs in judgement, and begins to learn what it really means to be a spy. The writers took a huge chance with this departure from the traditional Bond role, and in my opinion it was the right move. Rather than have Daniel Craig try to live up to a Sean Connery standard, they take him in a direction that is non competitive, yet compelling on its own merits.

Where Bond films usually awe us with action, this film throws us a change-up. The post-opening sequence is quite spectacular, and would make this an enjoyable Saturday afternoon distraction even without the rest of the film. From here we change course, into a slightly less than compelling tale surrounding a poker tournament.

A big miss in this installment is the product shilling. If you're reading this Hollywood, please knock it off. No seriously, just stop. It's insulting. I did not feel the need to buy a new Ford, a cell phone, a Sony laptop, or book a stay in one of your Vegas casinos to drop my life savings at the poker tables after watching this movie. If anything, I have more understanding of why the kids are unapologetically downloading movies. Your customers are getting sick of forking over cash to watch marketing drivel dressed up in cinema robes.

Despite some of the missed plot devices and story pacing, this movie is worth the rental. I found the tale of a Bond who is learning the ropes, and growing into his role very watchable. Perhaps in the next film we might see Craig put away the brand name items and continue in his evolution toward Bond.
4/10
Wildly Overrated; but not because of the v.fine Mr. Craig
ilikeimdb28 March 2007
So, why only a 4 out of 10? Not because of Daniel Craig, who did a fine job of playing the cool, chiseled, dedicated, daring but always British Bond character (and having an outstanding physique doesn't hurt either). I have issues because the plot is beyond silly and contrived to the point of nonsensical. I'd need to completely spoil the "plot" to list the absurdities, but a couple of oblique examples: The opening chase scene is part Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in a laughable comic book over-the-top fashion. The plot twists don't make sense, especially the one involving the car chase scene toward the end and the subsequent actions which depend upon an outcome to that car chase which can't possibly be counted on in advance (and whose outcome is pivotal to the rest of the movie) (N.B. a Bond movie with car chase scenes? Not giving away much plot here!). So many clichéd plot lines involving drinks! The most boring card game ever filmed! So, this film is so much crap, except for the presence of Mr. Craig, who I hope will be treated to a much better screen play the next go 'round. A mostly wasted M, too, though one faults Judi Dench at their own peril (she was fine). Craig - 9 stars; Cheesy Movie - 0.
5/10
Bond takes a de-tour...
culmo805 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sorry, to me this wasn't a Bond film. The only thing this film had to do with the Bond series is the name James Bond.

It's not the lack of gadgets or the missing Q...it was just the lack of a certain atmosphere.

While it was an interesting take on Bond, it almost seemed like it was more of a knock-off type spy movie. You could have changed the names of the characters and this film would have tanked.

I never felt comfortable with Craig playing Bond; he seemed too rough around the edges and too human...yes I know, that's realistic but we don't go see Bond films to see realism. And yes, the novels portray a scarred tough Bond but then again Ian Fleming worked with the earlier films to give us the on-screen Bond that we all know.

Bond villains are generally supposed to be tough, in control...the villain here seemed weak and incapable. He was a middle-man; someone hardly worth Bond's time or at least worth an entire film if you know what I mean.

Overall, it was slightly entertaining; get it on netflix or something to pass a few hours...but this isn't a Bond film I'd watch again as I do other Bond films. As the film really seemed to drag in some parts, especially during the casino scenes.

This is not the right direction for Bond films...sorry, it just misses the mark.
5/10
The most far-fetched Bond movie so far
lorenzoadd17 December 2006
I was tempted to give a worse rating than I actually have to this movie because is so gross and lacking substance compared to the other Bond movies. I used to look forward to the Bond movies, because I was always impressed and entertained by the progress for one movie to the next one. But all stopped here...at this King Kong(what's up with that monkey running????)meets The Terminator movie...plus a little bit of Die Hard(est) in its worst sequel. I'm saddened and I mourn Brosnan retirement from the Bond role. I'm wondering if Timothy Dalton would be still capable of playing another role. In my opinion either one of those two, Brosnan and Dalton would've done a 100 times better job than Craig. I'm not saying that it's Craig's fault. It might be the screenplay, or the director's fault but the bottom line is that the movie is not worthy of a Bond movie. So, go see it only if you have nothing better to do. I recommend sleeping.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Too Much Messed About
JulianMHall23 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I came into this dubious about Daniel Craig as Bond. Although trying to view it objectively he still doesn't fit for me.

From the opening titles which are a total break with tradition this had problems feeling like a Bond film.

Admittedly there was some interesting use of technology, but not enough advanced for what we have as consumers now.

The film: Originally the game was Baccarat, but the film makers chose to change this to Hold 'Em Poker, simply because they believed viewers wouldn't understand Baccarat. What is wrong with putting a breakdown of the rules on the film website and/or on the DVD as one of the extras? Secondly the time-line is completely fouled up. This is SUPPOSED to be prior to James' getting his 00 status, and then his first mission following on from that. His *first* mission is supposed to be BEFORE the others if my logic is correct? So why is it set in current time? M mentioning the crash on 12/9, all the brand new gadgets of course, oh and she mentioned the end of the Cold War.

This is supposed to be the *60s* when the Cold War was very much still on. I would have liked to see a lot more authenticity, even if the gadgetry looked dated.

A great film marred by too much messing about hence only a 6 - and it was lucky to get that.
4/10
the name's Bland , James Bland
wadetalon28 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie starts with such a bang which doesn't let up then its straight into the famous card game (now changed to Texas hold for the up to date audience), But unfortunately as soon as The love interest gets kidnapped and you get past the torture scene (OUCH!). It becomes a horrible little love story with a crap ending tacked on....an ending that could have happened at three other points in the movie.

Don't get me wrong Craig is brilliant in the role but its like they switched writers half way through and ran out of money the second half of the movie is just utter crap. As far as the Bad guy is concerned he starts off being this ruthless bad guy seems really evil...right up until he takes a whiff of his inhaler during the poker game and he becomes a wheezing whining cry baby who is not even finished off by bond but some small part character while bond stares on with his swollen man parts hanging out.

If you really want to see it wait till DVD then rent it believe me you ain't missing much on the big screen. As far as all the hype about the New Bond movie is concerned , The was this amount of hype around Goldeneye and now when people look at it the movie looks very dated and im sure this will be the same for Casino.
Casino loyale
dbdumonteil28 December 2006
Simply,this is the best Bond since Connery 's heyday (1963-66) ,but do not expect the return of the good old days ."Casino Royale" is something different,if I should describe it,it would be a return to Ian Fleming's spirit.Those who know the novels will certainly agree.Daniel Craig makes Bond a cold hard unkind character,just the way he is in Fleming's books .Without Connery's sense of humour,his Bond has something disturbing ,even threatening...but he is also a frail human being, as the last scenes show.For the first time -with the exception of " On Her Majesty's secret service " - the ending leaves Bond a broken man.

I've never liked the Moore/Brosnan efforts .They had the occasional good song( "Live and let die") ,good cinematography (" the spy who loved me" by Claude Renoir),but the screenplays butchered Fleming's books -who had asked that after his death - thus after "THunderball" all the plots should be original ones using his titles and characters.And during Dalton's (the best of the post-Connery Bond until Craig's appearance:it's not a coincidence if both were first stage actors,having played Shakespeare)and Brosnan's era,as they were running out of novels,the writers started to write the titles too...

The cast and credits are sensational ,matching the splendor of those of "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball" .But the first sequences made me fear that Bond should become a superman once again.But the rest of the film is devoid of gimmicks,gadgets ,keeping the big poker game of the novel as its Pièce de Résistance ,and daring unusual inventive scenes (Bond's heart attack;the scene under the shower with Vesper:no it's not what you are thinking of!;the tears of blood) "Casino Royale" (I 've never understood the spelling;it's a French expression and should be written "Casino Royal" )makes veiled references to the places where "Thunderball" (Nassau) ,"Goldfinger "(Switzerland) and above all "From Russia with Love (the finale in Venice) were partly filmed.

Some of the viewers may remember the version of the sixties: an attempt at a spoof on the saga,it failed totally to convince me and the one thing I remember is Herb Alpert's music.So the script writers were right to make a new version of that book.Now could we dream of remakes of "you only live twice " (without the gadgets but with the "suicide" castle) and all the other novels transferred to the screen in the seventies and eighties which ,as the first four episodes did ,would roughly follow Fleming's plots?

NB:Eva Green's mother ,Marlene Jobert ,was one of the biggest French stars of the late sixties/early seventies.
1/10
Craig as Bond - OK, but Casino Royal a Bond - NOK
otth-15 July 2007
I hope you don't mind but I'll be one more of the few here to comment very negatively indeed about this film.

Let me say first that I AM a Bond fan and proudly own the Bond DVD collection with all 20+1 films. Every single one of these has it's charms, the more modern ones are those I like least, but nevertheless, they are OK.

Now this new Casino Royale Bond edition is beyond all comparison. It's a mere action flick, a brutal one to boot with unnecessary, explicit violence that has nothing to do in a Bond movie. Craig is a great actor and how well he tackles his task of interpreting this Bond here, speaks in his favor. The feel, the story, the settings are wrong, unreal, out of context, badly put together. I didn't get what it was all about! The actors run and come and go and do all kinds of things without any background explanation and logic. The settings very wildly from a high-speed luxury train in supposedly Montenegro, when there are no such trains there at all, to Venice where houses collapse selectively without damaging others, etc.etc. It's all such a mix-up, a terrible sauce to excite, more than superficially, a gullible, eat-it-all-if-it-cracks-and-pops public obviously accustomed to bad action flicks to the point of becoming mindless creeps. What a pain! Great God in Heaven...
6/10
Bond by name only
jgc20064 January 2007
Having seen the Bond franchise become little more than an action blockbuster machine, first in the Timothy Dalton era and then seeing a steady decline from there with Pierce Brosnan, I was duped into thinking that things would be different this time around. This time the special effects had been stripped back, there was less gadgetry and perhaps most importantly, a new Bond. I had also filled in a few blanks myself; this Bond movie would have more style, more COOL!

Of course, had I given it any serious thought and not been caught up in the hype, I would have realized that without a new director (and probably a completely new crew) what we were going to get from Martin Campbell would be more of the same, just with a different Bond. After all, this is the director who is responsible for The Mask of Zorro films. I made a big mistake.

Casino Royale is an action blockbuster without enough action. A spy thriller without intrigue or espionage or any of the cool stuff that made Bond so great in the 60s and 70s. It's a James Bond film by name only. Change the main character's name and you have a very average action film that could easily star Bruce Willis or, dare I say it, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I have no problem with Daniel Craig as Bond, but a good actor can't save a bad film. I won't even go into the glaring plot holes which are, quite frankly, insulting.

What amazes me is how Martin Campbell and his team could not look back at the old Bond movies and at least try to get some ideas from them. They are in the perfect position to emulate stylistically some of the best films of the genre and put their own modern spin on it. I'm all for updating, but leave the good stuff in!
9/10
Casino Royale is great Bond beginning for Daniel Craig
tavm24 November 2006
Since my actual birthday was near, my friend offered to pay for both my admission and concessions when seeing this movie. We both enjoyed Casino Royale, my friend saying it was one of the best. I heartily agree since it was based on the first James Bond novel and as such it stays true to Ian Fleming's version of 007. Daniel Craig makes a great impression as a Bond who gets hurt both physically and mentally (the torture scene with Le Chiffre is especially painful to watch though there's still some humor to make it palatable). I love both Judi Danch's M ("God, I miss the Cold War") and Eva Green's Vesper Lynd (she goes from frosty to witty to playful convincingly in the space of an hour). And there are the great action set-pieces we've come to love in Bond movies involving construction sites and airports. In my opinion, Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery. So, yes, I highly recommend Casino Royale.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disappointing film is more revisionist/re-imagining than simply a grittier restart...
vikingrinn19 November 2006
At one point Ian Fleming thought the greatest of 007's Sean Connery might not even be fit for the role, as he may not be "refined enough"... After seeing the camera tests a few times, he did become a believer and filming progressed. The rest was, as they say - history.

I had high hopes for this new 007 film (which I anticipated greatly), and I must say after finally seeing this film Daniel Craig just doesn't fit. I watched, and this film unraveled itself as more of a "pc" re-imagining bit than simply a grittier Bond series restart "as advertised".

To anyone who's actually read Ian Flemings novels (yes, they are indeed a tad darker), Bond nonetheless is still a smooth, sexy, and sophisticated ladies gent who prefers his martini's "shaken, not stirred". Craig felt forced... at times he even walked so stiff (like he had just finished up with his catwalk instructor and proceeded immediately to set) it seemed he was pretending so hard to be someone/something he wasn't. For a proper Bond casting it should all come off so natural.

I don't know, Craig just didn't work, and neither did the revisionism writing/direction despite some decent action sequences. Ian Fleming himself had an official artists rendering ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fleming007impression.jpg ) ordered up as to what he thought the Bond he created should look like - why stray from that vision? The films just needed to go die-hard to the source material and move away from the campy Hollywood direction to which they had digressed...
1/10
WORST Bond & James Bond Movie Ever!!!
gonwk2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
57 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hi folks,

If there was a lower score than 1, I would have Gladly picked that. What a WASTE of my money. This movie has passed beyond awful.

I thought after being totally disappointed in "Die Another Day" Bond movie ... since they casted the Un-talented Halle Berry as Jinx and making her part of Bond Girl history ... was bad enough ... but I guess the Producers, Casting Agents, and Directors are either sleeping at the helm or they figured ... all they have to do slap "007" in front a movie and whole bunch of idiots will rush to the movies and pay good money ... well, from the "Positive" reviews I have read here I guess they have assumed correctly ... because all of us rushed to the movies to see the Latest BOND Movie.

1) Daniel Craig ... he is the WORST Bond ever casted ... the guy DOES NOT look anything close to a Bond. He looks like a phony 007. He over-played his roles ... what is the deal with the guy and his bottom lip ... keep biting it or something to give him the "Sophisticated" Bond look ... GOD, PLEASE ... let this be his LAST FILM as BOND ... he SUCKS!

2) This Bond movie stinked as a whole ... there was hardly any suspense like the good old Bond movies used to have ... also where the heck were the usual Bond Gadgetry ... just a Stupid Tray popping out so he can use the needle to revive him ... what gives!?!?!? , in the old times with less technology Bond had more State-of-the-Art stuff ...

3) I am getting TIRED of "Judi Dench" as "M" ... this woman looks and sounds less and less realistic as the "M" ... OK, OK, so it sounds great with the Women Libs and all the other politically correct B.S. ... but when is Hollywood going to stop making Movies and Theatre as their Pulpit for getting their agenda thru ... please use other Crappy movies to do it with and LEAVE BOND movies alone ... for God's sake. ALSO, To director of this movie ... how Sexy is it to start the movie by zooming in some Old Bra's wrinkly and sagging Breasts ... meaning "M" ... Judi Dench ... who wanted to get a glimpse of her cleavage ... SICKENING .. I almost tossed my burrito on the head of the gal sitting in front of me in the Theatre.

I guess I better stop now ... since I am running out of time.

Bottom of the Line ...

A) Daniel Craig Got to Go! B) New "M" .. please. C) More suspense and Gadgetry for the next Bond.

THANKS!
1/10
The Worst Bond of all time
SeriousMovieCritic2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the timid and most unexciting "starter story" (the worst I have seen in any Bond) to the tedious and unexciting storyline - this was the worst Bond ever filmed. Even the animated main title sequence is the worst of any Bond film. One wishes Maurice Binder back from the grave - he could have done a much, much better job.

The opening scene has been stolen and re-filmed from the movie "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" - the same plot, the same roles filmed in the same locale. Did nobody notice that? The only difference is that the James Bond version was filmed in black and white - how nouveau!

Casino Royale should have been sharper edited. Many times I nearly feel asleep and caught myself looking at the watch during the long, unedited and tedious dialogs scenes between James Bond and his "girls". These conversations were pointless and did not go anywhere. The "villain" was no really a "villain" - in fact he was the dumbest, boring and lamest "villain" in film history. A villain should be portrayed as such to make the audience dislike him - in this Bond film, the audience did not give a dam if the villain lives or dies.

In fact, all the characters of Casino Royale were not sufficiently portrayed for the audience to care for them. For example: the unattractive "blond" help of the bad guy who poisoned James Bond appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere - who cared ? She looked like a lifted, vulgar and out of place Eastern European prostitute - which villain in any Bond movie ever had such poor taste?

Talk about the ending of the movie: one felt reminded on a "cliffhanger". The bad guy was introduced towards the end and no one cared about him anyway - in fact, it was not clear for the majority of the audience if he was the bad guy after all. I think the only person who could follow that thin storyline was the trainee who thought that he wrote a good script.

In general, the movie is a waste of time, energy and resources. I am a huge Bond fan and have all the movies - Casino Royal has been a huge disappointment.
6/10
Never say Bond again
avisekarora2418 November 2006
It is a wee bit surprising that Casino Royale is rated so high. Though its a very good smart action flick with all the works, chase and stunts and blowing up a house in Venice and you know what, but its absolutely not a Bond movie. Well, i love movies like MI, Bourne Identity, Munich, etc., but its not the same when you are making a movie based on a cult figure here. Its like Mart being remixed and played in a nightclub. Craig is a good action hero but when you are playing Bond you have to restrain yourself because for heavens sake Bond is not a cowboy. Bond is not about muscles and thats where the director misses the plot. We have been flooded with remakes and a more "realistic" and "original" portrayal of our legendary figures which is accepted as creative license, but sometimes its better to leave a few things as they are/were.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A first time watcher in 2021
alexbrogan001 November 2021
Holy cannoli this film was elegant.

Everything I heard about it was true, and I'm watching the series now because No Time To Die seems to be the last one for Daniel Craig.

Extremely fast paced high octane action (no shaky cam!!) and it starts right at the beginning.

Terrific performances all around. Jeffrey Wright was a great surprise!

It's everything you want from an exciting action blockbuster.

My only complaint is that the film had about 3 endings. So I felt it dragged. Every scene was important, but I still felt the movie didn't know when to stop.
2/10
Art is Gloomy, Sulking and Cynic
minamurray1 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh my God, Twilight is such Evil Fluff, while men have Serious Art. How do you know Casino Royale is Serious Art? Because it is painstakingly Gloomy, Sulking and Cynic, disastrous attempt to make men's own Superficial Series as Serious Art. Result is one of the worst Bond films ever, perhaps THE worst one. Daniel Craig as J Bond, always a sexist with brain between legs and without sissy things like moral compass, is now totally sociopathic and he and plastic Eva Green as tragically tortured heroine have less chemistry than me and my laptop. Story is boring dross with dollop of sadism and token not-too-happy ending. There's no style or entertainment value.
9/10
James Bond is Back!
3xHCCH23 November 2006
Vesper Lynd: Am I going to have a problem with you, Bond? James Bond: No, don't worry. You're not my type. Vesper Lynd: Smart? James Bond: Single.

This is just one of the many smart and naughty verbal exchanges in this fantastic Bond film! I heartily recommend Casino Royale for all of you to watch and enjoy! There are so many unique scenes that were shot with great technique. Those early scenes in Madagascar construction site are a grade of their own. The very exciting sequence at the Miami airport is heart-stopping. The super-sensitive shower scene is previously unseen in other Bond films. The poker games were very exciting even when they were just seated around a table. James Bond is truly back! Daniel Craig has recreated this icon. Very rough and tumble and vicious. Very realistic! Surely Pierce Brosnan cannot do this particular Bond.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Are there no writers out there who can do better than this?
jds104015 November 2006
I have no idea how much Paul Haggis contributed to the final product, but it is clear that since Messrs Wade and Purvis started providing the 'scripts' for the Bond films, something has gone awry. Daniel Craig is excellent, Martin Campbell shows a real flair in his second Bond outing, and the (mainly Czech) crew have done a tremendous job, But the script is simply DIRE. (I paraphrase) - example - the line '...they are demanding your head on a plate' - the next line ought to be '..I might just give it to them' - but instead is transformed into '..I might just feed you to them (sic). The screenplay is filled with squandered opportunities for witty exchange, finally degenerating into outright vulgarity (the scene in the hospital gardens for example). The pacing is completely off - the film is front-loaded with two length action sequences - then nearly an hour of very little. Worst of all - there is no climax to the story - 'twists' (such that there are are) revealed well before the end, and the obvious attempts to pull off a Batman Begins with the closing scene fell completely flat at the screening I attended at the Odeon Leicester Square this afternoon. I am genuinely surprised at some of the critics' high praise for this one - I enjoyed Die Another Day more than this - and my favourites are Goldfinger and OHMSS.
5/10
A departure from the usual Bond, and not a good one.
Mat_Zombie17 November 2006
Let me start by saying for the most part i enjoy the recent remaking of many old ideas, such as Batman Begins and the new Battlestar Gallactica. Many of these re workings try to stay true to the best aspects of the original show/film, but take out the worst aspects, whether it be bad acting, low budget, poor effects etc.

Casino Royale is very much a similar idea, but unfortunately they have got it the wrong way round. Watching it at the cinema last night, i found myself bored from about halfway through the poker game. They have stripped away the best aspects of Bond and left the worst, with bad acting and truly cringe worthy lines.

They have re-invented something which simply did not need re-inventing, and in doing so have taken out everything that makes a bond film, well bond. Gone are the high tech gadgets and fast cars. The bulk of the action is over within 10 minutes and most of it has already been shown in the trailers. The rest of the film tries to be a tension filled game of cat and mouse, and ends up being a far too long game of uninteresting and very predictable poker.

Comparing it to the Bourne Identity doesn't work as Bond has never really tried too hard to be as ultra realistic as Bourne. Some of the gadgets are no doubt real, but much of it is a slight escape into fantasy, such as the underwater Lotus.

Making it more realistic and making Bond into more of an everyman wasn't what, in my opinion the genre needed. And instead of getting his Gadgets from Q it seems Bond is now getting his stuff from Sony Ericsson and Ford.
1/10
Decent, but definitely NOT a BOND movie.
dannytomasso26 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me try an analogy: you go to MacDonald and they have no burgers, they serve no fries, no Coke, they have no mustard or ketchup. In fact they only serve Vegan food, they are dressed in black and green uniforms and the sign in front of the building is a monkey!!! But they are very proud of their MacDonald store!!! Have the producers lost the plot? Do they and the many commentators on this site understand the notion of a "brand" or the "recipe" of a Bond movie? So many commentators here are making "intellectual" commentaries praising this movie and I would agree with quite a few of them IF this would be a generic action movie, but this is supposed to be a Bond movie. How can so many people miss this point? How about a remake of Romeo and Juliet without Romeo and Juliet, without any love story and I'll name the movie Seinfeld? Maybe it would be a good movie, but not a Romeo and Juliet!!!! How about the totally politically correct, perfectly in tune with the UK policy these days, tone of the movie? They started a few movies ago when they appointed a woman for the role of M and now James Bond doesn't flirt with women any more, he is not witty any more, he refuses random sex, he falls in love with the most banal woman in town, he cries like a girl, he crashes his Aston Martin like a beginner in about 30 seconds without being chased by anyone and he runs out of money???? James Bond broke? And people still insist that this movie is a Bond movie? What is this, mass brain washing? James Bond is a chauvinistic, flirtatious, macho, heterosexual man, a modern Don Juan combined with a modern D'Artagnan, with a great love for beautiful women (not blah women), for the best cars, for the best gadgets, that travels the world in the most exotic destinations without concern for money, he's always dressed top notch, he likes the best things in life, best cigars, best drinks, he's extremely quick and witty and flirtatious in his conversations etc. That is the James Bond that I and many like myself would love to see again and unfortunately, Daniel Craig is not him. Although a nice guy and an accomplished actor, he is not James Bond, he's just too rough. Hugh Laurie would be a better Bond, Hugh Grant would be a better Bond and Clive Owen would probably be the best Bond of all times if only Barbara Brocolli would stop messing around and make great BOND movies again.
6/10
hit and miss
ca266 December 2006
I've never read the original books so I have no idea how faithfully this movie portrays them.

But I DO know that this took a franchise and watered down into 'just another action flick'.

As some have already pointed out, the action is well-filmed - especially the "urban gymnastics" at the beginning. But the film needs more than great fight scenes to be a memorable movie.

I found myself unconcerned with the Bond character and wishing, hoping, for some more sexy women and gadgets. The Bond character is uninteresting, flat, and dark. Not at all the Bond we all know and love. Those of you who've seen it - think about it; did he say ANYTHING remotely interesting, humane, or charming throughout the movie (aside from when he was flirting with women)?

And frankly, I could do without seeing a man punched in the balls over and over again. It doesn't fit the Bond style and didn't make ANY sense in the script. At that point in the movie, all the baddies had to do was threaten to torture his love interest and he'd have folded.

There were just too many things that didn't make sense in the script, and too little reason to care about the main character. And the writers seem like they couldn't decide whether the movie was for adults (torture, violence, blood, etc), or for kids. I mean, the sexuality was VERY tame (even for a Bond flick) and they felt the need to beat us over the head with literal, verbal narratives of things that were plainly obvious. For example, all through the big card game, they have a supporting character whisper play-by-play explanations to a female observer as if she's too dumb to figure out what's going on herself. Yet, she's SUPPOSED to be this intelligent, analytical professional. And that's BESIDE the fact that every moron in the theater can figure out for themselves that when Bond pushes all his money into the center of the poker table, he's gambling all his money.

For an action flick, the movie hits in many ways. For a legendary franchise, it misses in many more.

If you liked Triple X or the Transporter or any other modern "extreme" action flick, you'll like this one too. And just like those, you'll forget you ever saw it within 6 months. It's not Braveheart or Schindler's List and should be given the 5-7 (out of 10) rating it deserves.

Hope this helps you decide whether to see it or not.
1/10
Not a real Bond film
milescorn23 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just watched this movie again, this time with my 14 year old son who is a James Bond nut, he likes them better than I do. He was lost, he could not understand how it could be modern day and Bond just got to be a 00. I told him this was supposed to be like the very first book, but then he read the book and said that the time is wrong, the date he meant, it is supposed to be 1958 or 57 and that for it to be the start it should have a male "M" a completely different game to play and there are no such things as computers like that in 1957, he stopped watching about half way through and told me the new die hard film was better, went to film collection we have and got "Thunderball", put it in and said, now here is a real James Bond movie. I have to say that film has action, but as far as a "Official James Bond film from EON" I would have to say the 1967 unofficial David Niven and Peter Sellers film was much better. Sorry Cubby Broccoli, they ruined your franchise. I guess that we might have to wait another ten years for a good Bond film again. And to see that the new film, Bond 22, is going to be just another action flick like this one tells me that there are no real Bond fans anymore. Too bad.
4/10
Good locations, not much else
Bottlebrush9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overall, I thought this was a disappointing film that didn't live up to the hype. The plot was thin and unoriginal, with a lot of gaps. What was all the bombing, crashing, jumping around like monkeys and shooting about - and right from the start of the film? The bearded guy is a friend and then suddenly he is not. Who was the American and what exactly was his connection to the plot line? Who was the man who was shot by Bond at the beginning of the film? What was the background of the outfit run by the man with the bleeding eye? None of this was properly explained.

By far the worst thing in the film was the anorexic woman who played Bond's love interest - she is a terrible actress. And apart from her skeletal and unattractive appearance in general, in one scene she is portrayed as completely flat-chested (wearing a purple dress), and in another as buxom (wearing a black dress). I know cinema is largely about illusion, but does this fact have to be quite so obvious?

Bond himself was not the best Bond by any means - although he was not terrible, I thought he was not particularly convincing or charismatic enough. He was not cool and suave like Bond should be (and always has been before), but some wimpish creature who occasionally suddenly and violently shoots someone, often seemingly without provocation. The actor is not bad - he is just miscast in this particular role.

The best things about the film were the locations, which were beautifully shot. The effects were also well done, but at the expense of the plot. The locations in particular helped cover up the bad plot line.

I cannot believe that 'critics' gave this film such high praise - just goes to show you can't rely on the opinions of people who seem to pander to taste and are seduced by hype.
4/10
Wonderful marketing
Nomasain17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
37 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magnificent how they made us believe this one was worth watching. Yet it's barely interesting. The biggest mistake made was the modern day setting. It is supposed to be a prequel! ***SPOILERS AHEAD*** In the fifties, when Fleming wrote this one, I could have been forgiving towards the absence of gadgets and loose women (No female theme song either). But then again, how would they be able to sell their nowadays Fords and Sony's? It's a real challenge to create an interesting movie, based on a 50 year old book. This shows. For instance, James and Vesper show off their I.Q. during their first encounter in a train, by knowing details about each others upbringing at first glance. But later on, James falls for the simplest poker trick in the book. Also, their stereotype male and female character are old-fashioned; not 2006. And the storyline is quite predictable. Some scenes are way to long, and some crucial ones are way to short. Vesper sized him up for the tux? Good enough for S,M,L,XL and XXL, not for tailor-made. I'll bet she used the Sony Vaio to check the MI6-site. What about the reanimation scene after the drowning? Obvious they used a real stiff. No water sprouting out, or any movement of her chest at all, when he tried to restart her circulation and giving her mouth to mouth. (He didn't even try; it might take up to 30 minutes, not seconds...) Today we know how Indiana Jones got his whip, and where his scar comes from. We should have learned why James likes his drink "stirred, not shaken" in this movie. But I guess the latter is nitpicking, it just should have played in the late 50's. (and with a storyline written before and not while filming.) It's still entertaining enough to get it on a budget DVD next year, but not better than my English....
2/10
Worst 007 movie ever
jiaoniang5 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the worst 007 series movies to me. I can't comment without spoiler included, because the story was too simple to tell! The title of the movie is all this movie is about. Unlike other tens of 007 movies, Casino lacks complex story and vivid characters. The story development is dull and no ground based. Long and violent scenes were seemed as inserted to make the movie long enough to sell, not very necessary need. The love scene also is unnecessarily composed, unlike all other counterparts.

First of all, the story: the story was 007 trace a bunch of bad guys, and like the poor 6th season of "24", all his leads were based on pure luck. If our success are based on luck, it would be a pity to the safety of us.

Second, the story: the climax of this movie was like a poorly made HK movie that several guys sit inside a casino and everybody is holding a flush. I mean, there is no suspicious in the story telling as we all know 007 must win.

Oh, had I talked about the cell phones? It seems without it, 007 can't get anywhere. So many times the cell phone becomes the only lead. In old days, people just burn the secret written on paper, nowadays people are stupid enough to leave all passwords and account on. Don't they just turn it off? Don't they know the word "single direction communication"? I've heard the case people will use SIM card just once and flush away in real life drama.
8/10
Yeah!
man-from-west4 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sweet film. Awesome cars and babe combo. Fun watching. Climax is convincing and of course the girl has a man but still ends up in bed with Bond.
4/10
Worst Bond Ever - Not even a Bond Movie
magick-111 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a Bond movie CR fails miserably. It has nothing that a Bond movie should have. It's SLOW, BORING, WITLESS, STORYLESS and utterly unconvincing from a character standpoint.

At no point in the movie do we ever care about any character. At no point in the movie do we feel ANY villain is really an evil "rule the world" or "pull off the biggest heist ever" type of baddie. At no point is ANYTHING sexy. At no point is Bond ever suave, sophisticated, cool, smooth, carefree or even likable.

If the whole movie was supposed to lead up to him saying the Bond James Bond line at the end, I want my two hours back.

(spoilers) There's zero, nada, none and no chemistry at all between the 'lovers' and its beyond obvious that she is scamming him from the get go. Its excruciatingly dull to watch the "game" both at the poker table and between bond and 'the girl' because we all know where its going and its not fun.

The movie was so tedious im surprised it survived to screen and wasn't renamed and given an alternate ending so it didn't horribly stain the Bond genre. The only thing slower than the movie was the amount of time it took the venice building to sink scene, Bond to rescue the girl we know is gonna drown scene and for bond to figure out he was being conned the whole time... yeesh!

Once again: No evil bad guys, no cool henchmen, no hot chicks, no great chases, no crazy gadgets and no James Bond.

There have been some bad Bond movies in the past, but they were bad only because they didn't live up to the standards set by better Bond movies before them. This movie is just BAD and an embarrassment to every Bond movie before it.

Like others have said before. If you're hoping for any kind of Bond movie at all, watch one that was made before this one - because despite the title and the lead characters name. James Bond does not appear in this film...

ps. the actors don't do a 1/2 bad job with what they were given - but what they were given to work with is NFG. Unless you're hot to see Dan naked and getting his family jewels smashed - skip this mess.
9/10
Good Bond film
sokolovaolga21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I really liked this film. It was more down to earth and showed more essence of the Bond franchise.

What I didn't like is that it was so much about poker - I don't understand the game but it was fun to watch anyway. Montenegro was a bit too clean cut for me, it was obvious that they substituted another country for it. The bit with the chief of the police in Montenegro was also confusing.

The bond girl has a lot more substance this time, she's purer, smarter, and has a history of her own. This made her a more interesting character to follow. Overall, I appreciated the effort the screenwriters put into character development (for everyone, not just Bond), instead of developing the gadgets. This Bond film is grittier, but also more realistic. Because it bring the issues closer to the everyday level, it also leaves a more lasting impression than other Bond films with their impossible technology and blow-up dolls. The audience in my auditorium was 30+ and it was obvious they enjoyed a more subtle approach.

A note about the new Bond actor: he's a better Bond in action than on a poster. I found that he didn't really come across as "Bond" in the photos for the film, but in action, he's Bond 110%.
1/10
Is this the end of the Bond Genre ?
excalibur130826 March 2007
Casino Royale ? 'Turkey Royale' more like ! Is this the end of the Bond Genre ? Pierce Brosnan was hoping to get another Bond picture, but 'they' didn't want him.

The film 'luvvies' had been scurrying around looking for a replacement but to no avail. Then one night at a night club, one of them took a fancy to one of the bouncers on the door. An ex-boxer who had fortunately done some acting; so 'they' offered him the part of the New Bond ! That is, of course, a fictitious assessment, but it might as well have been fact.

What on earth was the film about ? Flash bang wallop; the film starts with action after a song that even Britney Spears would turn down. Bond chases an African Olympian around a building site and learns the finer points of scaffolding and the building trade. Not a builder's bum in site ! Or maybe there was, a bloke called Bond ? As usual he kills a load of people.

Is this what is termed a plot-less film ? The scenes are tacked thoughtlessly together; there is no hint of character development, acting or story ? Daniel Craig really does look like a doorman at a local discotheque, with probably less personality.

To date, the Bond film I have liked the least was 'Moonraker'; this excuse for a big budget film was by far the worst.

This offering is neither Bond; nor spies, or an attempt at drama. Judi Dench must have wondered whether her lines were taken from the back of a Corn Flake packet ? As for Bond's script; you will get more humour from a constipated traffic warden.

I shall with the comment I began with:- "Is this the end of the Bond genre?"
4/10
Take aps. for yet ANOTHER Bond, please...
GodsStar5 December 2006
First off, I liked Craig's acting in the film. I even like the more sinister James Bond. Being a little more Rambo/Segal/Van Dam is certainly what we tend to like "today" so I'm willing to accept that. Nice touch.

Other reviews mirror my thoughts, though, about Craig NOT being a suave James Bond. The Bond we've grown to love has always been so cool while kicking so much tail that it defies logic to us. 007's the type of guy that mows down dozens of evil henchman like Aeon Flux and then pulls out a whisk broom to brush his lapels off before returning to the baccarat table. Craig ain't him.

What I couldn't get around throughout the film was that I didn't like Craig's appearance. Having guys like Connery and Moore to look at through most of the Bond films has set the tone for what a Bond should be…debonair and HANDSOME. Obviously, the RE-inventing of Bond has demanded that Bond look like "Regular Joe" and, of course, have the cool "Bed-Head" hairdo to make the Ys and Xs happy.

This all fits in a society that's hewn a "hooray for mediocrity" country. EVERYONE gets a trophy for playing! EVERYONE can be a cheerleader! EVERYONE can be a flight attendant! EVERYONE can be James Bond! Uhh…No! No you cant…Over two hours of footage and all the eye candy in the world doesn't change that.
10/10
Someone please flush this.
Egg_MacGuffin9 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is the cinematic equivalent of an incorrectly-assembled jigsaw puzzle. Just a total mess no matter where you look. Watching this felt like watching 5 movies at once and only catching one-fifth of each one. There's just an incredible amount of underdeveloped characters and subplots.

Why chase the unbelievably athletic black dude bomb maker guy in the beginning? It didn't seem to be connected in any way to the guy with the crazy eye except perhaps in the most minor, circumstantial way possible...not to mention the sequence went on for about 10 minutes and ended with Bond killing the guy outright after we are informed that he needs to remain alive.

And the whole thing about blowing up the plane...why? Who was that guy? I have absolutely no idea. Didn't even catch his name. They gave us NO INFORMATION about him. The whole tanker-chase was just absolutely ridiculous and seemed more at home in a cartoon, and before you know it, the unknown guy is dead. Not to mention the entire sequence was pointless. Bad guy needs money, which is the reason for trying to blow up the plane. Afterwards, Bad guy still needs money. You can remove that entire segment and nothing has changed. It's redundant.

There's at least a dozen characters that we essentially know nothing about who suddenly die and that's supposed to mean something. Who are they? Who's side are they on? Do they even have names? They could have saved the salary budget and just got a few cardboard boxes with painted faces on them instead. I know it's a Bond movie, but for Christ's sake.

The guy with the weird eye was quite a bland villain. It's mentioned that he's some math genius and that makes him good at card games, but why is that talent never actually shown in the movie? He just turns cards like everyone else. I know it would be a little difficult to show the inner workings of his mind, but it's better than a throwaway line. So if being good at math makes him so great at cards, what makes Bond so good? And if Bond doesn't need a reason, why does the eye guy? And why is Bond even there instead of a professional card player if they need this guy to lose so badly? And speaking of this card game, why did the villain, despite his many connections to the underworld and corrupt dictatorships, decides his only way to recoup his losses is by holding a high stakes poker game with a CIA agent as well as a British Secret Agent? And couldn't they just abduct him and hold him in a secret location until his enemies were hot for his blood, then threaten to release him if he didn't flip? It seems much more logical than the card game method, which would still require abducting the bad guy and threatening to release him if he didn't flip.

Despite the repeated need for the villain to win all the money brought to the game, the villain, the alleged super genius, decides to poison Bond while Bond has 50 million sitting on the table which means that money would not have been won by the villain had he succeeded in killing Bond.

After the villain's defeat he was supposed to be grabbed by CIA but apparently the boys from Langley are more incompetent than the guerrilla soldiers from Uganda because they didn't even get near the bad guy and let him abduct members of the British Secret Service and flee the country.

And what was up with that tracking device they put in his arm. Talk about a setup with no payoff. What a waste of time that was.

From here on in we get a lot of contrived and pointless melodrama as the film refuses to stop and continues to slog through Bond's tragic romance with a woman who is so in love with her boyfriend that she decides to steal ten million dollars from the government (that's all that belonged tot eh British government, which ain't that much) and she also bangs the hell out of Bond for good measure - because she is so in love with her abducted boyfriend.

To top off the insanity, we get a crazy chase through Venice to hunt down some one-eyed villain we have never seen before that has nothing to do with anything, as far as we know. Then just when things couldn't get more ridiculous, the love interest decides to kill herself by locking herself int the elevator of a sinking house. Why did she do that? I guess because it was supposed to be tragic and sad - it was just stupid.

Another thing that bothered me was the fact that Bond got help with nearly everything he did. He got helped out of the whipping chair, he got help with the defibrillator, he got help disarming an enemy, he got help disposing of the bodies, he got help tasering that other dude, etc. Most of the stuff was completely done by other people, and it made for a rather passive "hero".

It seems as though every review ever written for this film (besides this one) compares the movie to other, lesser-quality Bond movies and praises it for sucking less than those. But if you actually look at this movie in and of itself, it's terrible in every way.

And on a side note, Eva Green looks infinitely more attractive without excessive layers of makeup gunked all over her face.
8/10
Bueno, Muy Bueno
ferguson-617 November 2006
Greetings again from the darkness. I have never really understood my fascination with Bond as I prefer to think of myself as too intelligent for this type of movie. Maybe it was the great clothes, beautiful women, playing with guns, wonderful toys, fast cars and world travels? Well despite all of the hoopla surrounding this latest Bond production, feel relieved knowing that the 007 franchise is not only safe, but dare I say, better than ever.

Daniel Craig (although a bit long in the tooth) plays the just promoted to "00", James Bond, and is flat out terrific! The acting ability he has shown in "Road to Perdition" and "Layer Cake" really take the story and script to another level. Sure he can strut and pose and gaze with the best of them (Pierce Brosnan), but Mr. Craig can really ACT, which this somewhat complex script actually demands.

The action in the first 20 minutes is heart-pounding and incredibly fast and dangerous. Luckily the pace slows down a bit as the plot develops. Yes, there is a plot and this time it is not world domination. That is good news and bad news. One of the two disappointments in this fine film is the bad guy played by Mads Mikkelsen. He is a fine poker player and pretty evil in his torturing (all males will squirm), but he just lacks the real charisma of the best Bond bad guys over the years. The other disappointment is the underuse of the greatest film theme song ever (yes, better than Star Wars) and the extremely weak Chris Cornell opening credit song.

Of course, there are beautiful women. Eva Green as Vespa Lynd is not your typical Bond girl. She is smart and smart-assed and goes toe-to-toe in a couple of ways with Bond. What a nice change of pace to see a woman's role written in a full scale, complex manner. It makes it much more interesting and entertaining.

Did I mention fast cars? The brand new Aston Martin is almost as cool as the 1964 model we get a couple of shots of. Since there is no Q, the wonderful toys are not in full swing yet, but the incredible settings in Prague, The Bahamas and Italy more than make up for it. The scenery and architecture are awe inspiring.

There may be no Q, but there is definitely an M. Judi Dench reprises her role, this time showing her frustrated side with her newest agent. She recognizes Bond's rare abilities, but worries about his mental state. By the end, she knows he is ready for more.

The supporting cast includes the underrated Jeffrey Wright, the always great Giancarlo Giannini and super model Ivana Milicevic in a strange role. The cast is fine and second time Bond director Martin Campbell ("GoldenEye") really lets the action and story and setting do most of the talking. His action scenes are not filled with close ups or rapid fire editing ... we actually get to see the fights and chases. He does a nice job of keeping the viewer in the story. I couldn't help but chuckle as Craig steps out of the waves and onto the beach - almost identical to the classic Ursula Andress scene in "Dr. No". Being a huge Sean Connery fan, I find this difficult to say, but here goes ... this is the best Bond movie to date. Wow!
4/10
Unimpressed
clonesheep18 December 2006
I fail to see the praise that Daniel Craig has received for this film. There are critics who wrote that he is a James Bond who "can act". Well, the only value of a James Bond movie is in its sheer escapist entertainment. Who bought $10 a piece ticket to see James Bond acting Shakespeare? That aside, this film is average in its production compared to previous ones of the JB series. I rate it below average overall because really, all of the surprise elements in James Bond movies have worn off after so many installments. Think a 36th Gozilla movie or a 9th sequel of Friday the 13th. The audiences know what to expect so give them something new on top of the expected values. This movie I saw has neither. And Daniel Craig failed to entertain.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Overall... a disappointment.
zarrod24 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was not one of the Bond fans who went into the movie with a poor attitude just because they switched actors. I was reserving judgment on Craig and actually had high hopes for the film. It started off pretty well and I was into it but by the second half I couldn't wait to get out of the theater; the plot just became really screwed up (Who the hell is Mr. White working for and what were his stakes?) and the girl became a bitch. In the end, it never really felt like a Bond movie. I know they were trying to reinvent him, but they should have taken out the bad and left the good instead of the opposite. Bond just isn't as slick as he used to be (except when he put the bomb on that guy, causing him to blow himself up). Also, where is the old Bond music? This new stuff is not noticeable and doesn't add anything to the movie. It wasn't Craig's performance that killed the movie, but a lack familiarity which we can always associate with James Bond.
10/10
Best Bond ever
esmeralda8014 November 2006
Super charged testosterone popcorn movie with a great love story at its core. What more could you want? How about locations that will gob-smack you and state of the art action sequences. This is the must see film of the holiday season. Want to forget about your daily grind and live in the fantasy world of a great tough-guy hero? Paul Haggis scores again with a screenplay far beyond most action films. And it's faithful to the book, has humor but no irony. Aren't we sick of irony? I never thought I could love a blond Bond, but he's fantastic. And instead of watching girls in bikinis come out of the ocean and fall into Bond's bed, we get to see the man himself come out of the ocean in a tight little Speedo. The six pack delivers big time. See it all on a big screen with the best sound. This is not one to wait for the DVD. It's a MOVIE.
26 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Save James Bond
Bizandplez22 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In some respects this was a James Bond movie, but it's not fun anymore. The movie is overly violent and has a tragic end that could of easily been avoided. James Bond saves the world but who is going to save James Bond from the meanies producing his movies. The James Bond they have is no Pierce Bronson and is better suited to being a bad guy I think. The chase scenes at the beginning is good but too long. Bring back the bouncy girl credits. Now we know what a double o means. Ian Fleming's favorite movie was the original Casino Royale which I much prefer to this version. This reminds me of what they did with Superman when they reinvented him in the early 90's. They killed him off and brought him back from the dead stronger than ever. Then they killed two kids in the comic book and I stopped reading it. The people producing James Bond movies better be careful that they don t lose the popular culture ties they have by putting bad endings on his movies, if it s not too late already.
3/10
Not the best Bond film
rebeljenn10 December 2006
While 'James Bond' is entertaining action-packed and contains a cast of criminals even more unusual and evil than the criminals in previous Bond films, you cannot go too wrong if you are looking for a little light entertainment. However, this film just did not seem to do it for me. First of all, the film was much too long. The location and type of action kept changing throughout without a build-up. The film tried to do too much, and then it left you suspended at the end.

The best part of the film was the card-playing sequence when we learned there was more than meets the eye to the situation there. This had suspense, action, and everything that the film needed but failed throughout.

I was also not happy about the sensitive side to this Bond with him falling head-pver-heels with the girl and planning to leave his job for her. I preferred the cool, stoic Bonds. However, it was refreshing and good to get a different character to Bond - and one a little more flawed in some areas.
7/10
Where was the James Bond?
invisibulman@aol.com20 November 2006
I was a big fan of Pierce Brosnan and his shoes will be hard to fill. Craig was adequate, but would not have been my first choice as a replacement. The bigger issue i had with this movie is the script. It is a complete departure from a proved formula for the James Bond movie. Bond was not particularly suave or witty. The first car he drives is a Ford! Are you kidding me?! (He does eventually get he's Aston Martin.) I know they are trying to give the female character more depth by creating some depth to the relationship, but there are two problems here. One, it goes against everything that is the Bond character and two if you're going to have these characters fall in love then let it play out. The biggest flaw was the villain himself. Bond must have a nemisis. The big-shot evil-doer is a dirty accountant, a screw up and a wuss. We don't need Bond to clean up Enron. All that said the movie isn't as horrible as i've made it out to seem. It was worth watching, once. This just isn't your typical Bond movie and in my opinion simply isn't as good.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a Disappointment
nutinpersonal20 April 2007
What is it that you love about the Bond films? The music? The gadgets? The fascinating women? The utter charm and savoir-faire of Mr. Bond? The exotic locales? The "eccentric" cast of characters? Well, you better go see another movie to get these because you won't find them in this film.

The gadgets in this film seem to revolve around resuscitation, which, all things considered, was a good choice.

As far as fascinating women all I can say is Thank God for Judi Dench. She is hands down the most fascinating woman in this film. Eva Green, the Bond Girl in the film, is easy enough on the eyes, but there is nothing special about her. She lacks grace and seems to be putting inordinate effort in making sure her voice sounds "low", but she only succeeds in sounding funny. The good news is that at least she wasn't portraying a woman trying to behave like a man.

Now for the character of James Bond....in this rendition he is rude, crude, completely devoid of charm and acts as if he has no experience in the worldly, sophisticated ways of the world (and doesn't care if he does). We are used to a James Bond that is the epitome of "cool under fire", but this one is a cry baby. Another words, he is no different than so many of the clueless young men that lack manners in this world that you can run into on any given day. Why should I pay good money to see more of this?

The locales in this movie are O.K. Venice certainly is a beautiful place, but hardly what I would call "exotic" or unseen by the vast majority of people that will see this film. Ditto for The Bahamas. Boring. The Czech Republic was an interesting choice and certainly different so I will thank them for that.

As far as memory serves me, there was really only one "eccentric" in this film. No one else comes to mind, which should tell you something about the cast of characters for this movie.

Save your money and watch this film when it shows up on T.V.
9/10
Born is Bond, James Bond
sweetrupturedlight5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale opened in my country on Dec 1st. I've been waiting for this movie with so much anticipation. The last movie i was this excited about was Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings: RoTK back in 2003! Here are my impressions: First off, i was convinced from the start that Daniel Craig would be a great Bond. i don't know why i had faith in the guy. Everyone else certainly didn't, and its not like i'd seen anything else he had done before. I suppose its the 'loving the underdog' part to my personality, but anyway, i liked the look of him, and if what the makers were saying was true, then we needed a new Bond to usher in a new era for the franchise. And boy, does DC deliver!! The premise of Casino Royale is a clever one. Its the first book by Ian Fleming, and with the introduction of a new James, it was a really clever idea from the film makers. They use the back story of Bond as a backdrop to presenting DC, the more beefed up, blonde super agent. The story revolves around exposing La Chiffe (King Arthurs' Triston, Mads Mickelson) as a terrorist funder, and so Bond gets sent to Montenegro to play La Chiffe in a poker game. Introduce, 2006 Bond girl (technically the FIRST ever bond girl), Vesper Lynd (portrayed by the wildly beautiful Eva Green, who played Sybilla in Kingdom of Heaven) who provides the cash stakes James uses to buy into the game. I have to say, i loved the writers' job here. This story revolves not only around how Bond becomes a 007, but also why he's the seducer of many but lover of none after Vesper. The backbone of this story is about love. Bond falls in love, and its the betrayal of that trust which gives rise to the James we all know.

The opening Black and White sequence is great! You get into the story by getting a glimpse at how Bond achieved his infamous "licence to kill". Immediately we jump into a breathtaking action sequence.. letting us know right off the bat, this DC was no ordinary Bond, and like nothing we have seen in the last couple of Brosnan outings. Here was a physical, rugged, sweaty male lead who bled and hurt just like the rest of us. I really liked that he wasn't perfect, and in many ways, was just a trainee who still made a heck of a lot of bad judgment calls. He's driven by his ego and need to succeed, and that is a weakness both 'M' (D. Judi Dench) knows about, and Vesper exposes. Bringing me back to DC. The man's body is something to behold. Its easy to see how hard he must have worked out in order to look that good. The stunts were real and believable and its one thrill after the next.

The story is paced well, moving from action to drama and back to action again. The scenes between DC and EG are wonderfully done. Vesper is not your typical bond girl. Here is a woman with a story of her own, and has more than enough self restraint, and respect for herself, to not be another notch on Bonds bedpost. The movie is also littered with great visual scenes between the two, where no words are needed in order to communicate the complexity of the characters and the emotional upheavals. The "shower scene" pops to mind here, the scene where James fights to free Vesper from her cage and finally where he embraces her dead body. No dialog, just raw emotion. For any bond, thats a really unique challenge. The writers wrote about a human, not just the secret agent. Great lines run abundant as well. The witty banter between James and Vesper, the sarcasm apparent with La Chiffe and the comical run-ins with M.

My only regret is that Vesper's reasons for betraying James is nothing but a voice-over / phone call from M. We learn she was being blackmailed to save a former lover (whom we never meet or know whether he is still alive), despite the fact that she has let go of him because of her love for James. Its a great testament to James's feelings when he utters, "The b*tch is dead". M manages to let him know Vesper saved his life in the end.. but its too late.

Born is Bond, James Bond. *goosebump moment*

DC is in my opinion the best choice they could have made. Brosnan was good, but this is a new era for the super agent, and i am left with no doubts that DC will bring a new life to the character.

What an excellent movie. 8.5/10
Daring experiment for the Bond series which mostly succeeds very well
DrLenera16 November 2006
I'll admit something first up. I enjoyed the much-criticised Die Another Day, Yes,the Madonna song and CGI were awful,but as a ramped-up,escapist action movie it certainly did the job. However,Casino Royale is a different beast altogether. The opening sequence is is black and white and shows Bond shooting a man,with flashbacks to Bond's first,decidedly messier,killing interspersed. Both the violence and Daniel Craig's intensity are quite shocking. After the eye-popping title sequence,cleverly based around cards,and a perhaps unusual but good title song which does grow on you,we are thrown into quite simply the most stunning action sequence done in years,as Bond chases a man up and down scaffolding,on top of a crane and through an embassy. It's undoubtedly over the top,but really is thrilling,and seeing Bond fall and get hurt a bit is refreshing and helps maintain,just about,believability.

It's possible that action wise the film never tops that scene,but the other three action sequences are all excellent and have superb editing that is fast,furious yet still lets you see what is going on,a lesson to some of today's other action directors. It's almost a throwback to the 60s Bond editing,only quicker. There was a sense in the 80s and 90s that maybe the Bond style of action was a little outmoded,it had certainly been imitated to death. Here,Bond becomes leader of the pack again,and the other upstarts need to keep up.

Daringly,the two and a half hour running time is not devoted to more action but chiefly two other things. The lengthy poker game IS long but maintains suspense even of you're not sure what the rules are and is broken up every now and again anyway. Then there's Bond falling in love. The World Is Not Enough and The Living Daylights had flirted with genuine romance for Bond but On Her Majesty's Secret Service up to now is the only real Bond love story. The time given to Bond's romance with Vesper Lynd is unusual but it needs the time allowed it to become convincing ,and,eventually,moving. After all,the main thrust of the film is not Bond fighting bad guys,or even playing an important poker game,but Bond becoming Bond,and this is brilliantly conveyed throughout.

It is this aspect in which Craig really succeeds. Yes,he is rough and ready at first but that is the film's character. He grows and matures throughout the film,and when he puts on the tux he's earned it and certainly carries it off better than Timothy Dalton,whom Craig is probably closest to. Perhaps the film's villains and girls are not as memorable as one might hope for,but here it's Bond whom you remember,whom the film revolves around,and for this film that's exactly as it should be.

Possible Casino Royale might be embraced by die-hard Bond fans more than general action movie goers,what you won't get here is constant action,silly gadgets,corny laughs {though there is humour,and in exactly the right places,such as during the otherwise horrible torture scene}. What you do get is an artistic triumph,a daring experiment that almost completely pays off,that takes us closer to the character of James Bobd than any other film. Roll on the next one,and definitely with Craig....
5/10
Incredibly weak plot, non faithful to James Bond series image.
flatline-1114 December 2006
Anyone, who states that the new type of directing and other "twists" favored the movie to be better, is terribly wrong.

I was fed up with the non-stop nude male body scenes, there were no decorative girls, which are essential in my opinion to a James Bond movie, and the dialog was absurdly bad. It was almost like a romantic B category movie.

I went to see it because the reviews were good, and i just realized halfway the movie that it is really, REALLY bad.

There were only two action scenes, worth mentioning, the rest is history... Is it a good James Bond movie? No.

Is it contains unexpected twists? No, you know everything about halfway through...

Is it well directed? I think no.

See for yourself, i'd say stay away...
10/10
Bad, Very Bad
henrymadman10 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As I said not bad but like every James Bond movie it has too many unbelievable bits in it like the chase scene just after the opening credits when Bond is chasing the man and they jump off a crane, now come on at least a broken leg from that!

If you watch the scene where Bond and the Assassin are fighting in the car at the airport and they are heading straight for the big special plane whilst going about 50mph it takes them about five minuets to get there and in that time Bond manages to free himself from the bad guy get hold of the steering wheel and stop the car!

This isn't an unbelievable bit but what I find a let down is that Bond is too rough and hardly ever uses a gun. So if you compare the climax of The Spy Who Loved Me Bond uses a gun but a fight scene from Casino Royale, well he uses his fists.
3/10
Not A Bond Movie Anyone Should Recommend...
rj45617 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Have To Begin And Say That The Movie Is Fair Entertainment, And Although Many Doubted Craigs Skills Before Entering The Role, I Had Confidence That He Will Perform Well Cause Frankly I Just Didn't Like Brosnan As Bond! Brosnan Reminds Me Of A Sleeky Salesman And Not Of A Secret Agent. But After Watching The Movie I Have To Say That, I Was Rather Disappointed With Craig, He Just Doesn't Have What It Takes To Be Bond, He Is To Crude, To Tough, A Person That Prefers Brawns Over Brains. A Character Without Charm, Sense Of Houmour Things That Were Natural With Connery,Moore Etc Just Like Dalton I Have A Feeling That Craig Wont Make It To The Third Movie, Although Frankly Speaking I Think That Dalton Was A Fine Bond. About The Movie Itself, What Disappointed Me The Most Was That I Got A Feeling That The Producers Did Their Best To Save Money On It!! Or On The Other Hand Weren't Wise And Spent It All In A Wrong Way. They Wanted Minimum Investment Maximum Profit. To Explain Myself: In The Movie Itself There Are No Gadgets At All!! No Unusual Spectacular Innovations We Are So Used To From All Bond Movies, Instead There Is Lots Of Lets Call It, Street Fighting, Bond Just Beats Up And Gets Beaten Up To Many Times During The Movie, On Cranes, Inside A Hotel, At A Falling Apart Building In Venice, No Brains Are Used By Bond To Get Out Of The Tough Situations He Encouters But Mostly Violence. Another Thing Most Of Secnes Or Should I Say Chases Are Rather Lame, For Example The Chase With The Special Aston Martin DBS Which Was Made Specially By Aston Martin Is Really Short And Useless, The Car Crashes In Less Than 20 Seconds, Again You End Up With A Feeling That Someone Was Short Of Imagination Or Short Of Money. The Chase At The International Airport Of Miami Is More Exciting But Again Not Something You Would Expect From A Bond Movie, And It Is Something You'll Have Seen A Million Times In Action Movies. There Is Another Big Problem With The Movie Was: Commercials In The Movie, Just One Example Out Of Many They Show Various Types Of Cel Phones During The Movie, Every Few Minutes!! And Whats Horrible Is The Crazy Amount Of The Sms Messages That Beeped Through The Movie Between The Actors, Rather Disgusting Honestly. The Movies Name Is Casino Royale But That Doesn't Mean That The Director And The Editors Have To Show Us A Bunch Of People Sitting On A Table Playing Poker In A Total Unrealistic Way, Which By The Way Makes It Boring To Watch, In All For Around 35 Minutes Of The Movies Time. To Summerise Things: I've Seen All Bond Movies At least 3 Times, So When I Say It Just Wasn't Good I Can Compare It In My Mind To Each And Every Movie, Each And Every Bit From Every Movie, When I Go To See A Bond Movie I Want A Fantasy World As Some Hav Written, A Fantasy World That Include All The Things You'll Find In Bond Movies, Things That Don't Appear In Other Action Movies, Lets Call It Trade Marks Of Bond Movies, And All Of Those Trade Marks Have Just Gone. 1. Craig Is A Good Actor But Doesn't Fit The Role. 2. No Q/R, Branches, No Moneypenny. 3. No Gadgets. 4. Almost No Beautiful Women, The Main Bond Girl Is Pretty, But Most Of Us Wont Remember A Second After The Movie How She Looked Like. 5. To Many Holes In The Plot, And The End Of The Movie Is Just Messy And Unreliable. * Just Left With A Feeling That The Directors, And Producers Wanted To Rap Up Things As Quick As Possible And Send It To The PR To Sell Us This Movie. To Bad That Some Cinema Critics Bought It, But That Also Tells You'll Not To Pay To Much Attention To Critics. 3/10
4/10
Not the worst Bond film, but not the best
wndrmdgt29 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been a Bond fan for over 30 years, both books and movies. I've heard a lot of comments that this Bond is much truer to the Bond book mythos than the other recent films. This is somewhat true. In the book, Bond is gritty, somewhat cold, somewhat brutal. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT WHY I SEE BOND MOVIES!! Bond MOVIES are about fun escapes to exotic locales, villains and heroes who are bigger than life, great humor, good gadgets, pulse-pounding action, and aspirations to do something much bigger and better than most people are called to. At this, this movie is a complete flop. Bond is cold, brutal, unfeeling. He does not enjoy good or bad times. He uses men and women as tools and toys. He finally starts to care for a character, but you don't know why. The villain is entirely uninspiring, the movie is WAAAAY too long, there are no gadgets to speak of, the action sequences are so long and unbelievable they make Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon look like a Discovery Channel documentary.

***SPOILER ALERT

There is a torture scene that, although brief, has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in my vision of a Bond film. Unfortunately, the torture scene merely continues the torture that this movie was to me.

I desperately wanted to enjoy this movie. I was simultaneously scared and bored.

Too bad.
8/10
"That last hand, it nearly killed me."
classicsoncall5 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm probably one of the few people writing a review for this film that can't actually call themselves a James Bond fan. In fact, this is my first review of a Bond film, as the couple I've seen ages ago predate my involvement with IMDb. So I can't competently comment on who my favorite Bond actor of all time is, though I'm kind of partial to Roger Moore and Sean Connery. See, I told you it's been a long time.

So I approach this film the way I do a lot of action thrillers, and that's with the greatest suspension of disbelief allowable given the impossibility of any human being having the ability to withstand the type of punishment that goes with the very first foot chase scene in this film, not to mention the impossible stamina one would need to run an endless obstacle course consisting of city street traffic, construction work sites and moving cranes. But it all looks exciting, and so for a mindless entertainment experience this works on a visceral level. What intrigued me more was the complex script writing that centered on Bond's (Daniel Craig) attempt to put away Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), funder of terrorists and all around bad guy. But then, things went awry again with that four story building that crumbled into dust for no logically coherent reason.

I had to gasp though, being aware of James Bond's 'future' exploits, that he was about to quit the Double-0 ranks, but quickly realized that there had to be one more plot twist coming that would put everything back into some semblance of normalcy. No disappointment there, as the film ended on a perfectly ambiguous note regarding Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), and a commitment to persevere as Bond, James Bond. You know, I think I'll have to go back and watch a few more of these flicks. I think I might be missing something.
8/10
Good movie that stands on it's own.
tomrito18 November 2006
I saw Dr. No with my father when it first came out and have been a Bond fan ever since. I did not know what to expect going in to see this film as I have never seen Daniel Craig in a movie before. The thing that struck me about Casino Royale was that I enjoyed the movie on its own merit; it did not feel like I was watching a "Bond" film. I don't know how to explain it, but until the end of the movie, I did not think of Mr. Craig as Bond. I don't know if that was what they were trying to do, but he didn't look like Bond and he didn't act like Bond. However, the character did grow on me and in the end I completely enjoyed the movie. Craig had managed to make his own character, that his name was James Bond, was something that I had to get used too. The story was intriguing, the action was intense and realistic without being over the top, and the acting was spot on from everyone, I really liked Giancarlo Giannini, Eva Green, and Judi Dench. All in all, I would recommend this film to everyone, the cinematography in all the locations was great, typical of a Bond film.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Spoilers. Not sure but just to be sure.
cd_BE23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
34 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So I saw the now Bond yesterday. First of all this is NOT a Bond movie. It is just another action movie like there are a hundred more.

If I don't look at the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond the movie still sucks big time. Every time I saw Craig I didn't believed him as Bond.

The one-liners in the movie are most of the time absolute not funny and most of the time they are totally misplaced.

What makes a Bond movie a Bond movie? Everybody knows; the Bond gadgets. A Bond movie without it isn't a Bond movie. I waited the entire movie for Q (John Cleese) But he didn't came.

I rated this movie 1, but even that is too much. To bad you can't give a 0. I don't understand why this movie had such a high rating. It is not a Bond movie. There is nothing in there that gives it the Bond tough.

**SPOILER** When Bond gets poised and goes in cardiac arrest that is totally wrong. In all the 20 Bond movies nobody of the villains has ever succeed in doing something like this.

When Bond is captured and is tortured by Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) it is not right. He makes idiotic jokes that aren't funny. **END SPOILER**

After seeing this Bond I really misted the real Bond Sean Connery. He is still the best Bond that I have seen.

If you want to see a other action movie you could go to Casino Royale. But if you want to see a Bond movie go rent Dr. No or an other older Bond movie.

Conclusion Casino Royale (2006) is a blockbuster movie to earn money. People who say that if you weren't a fan of Bond whit this movie you will. Well they are right, this isn't a tradition Bond movie. It is a action movie like so many more.

To quote Sadusky (Harvey Keitel) in National Treasure: Somebody has to go to jail for this.
10/10
Bond's Back
rjsf9615 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So after 4 years Bond is finally back in action and what better way to reboot the franchise than to start the story off with Fleming's original novel of the same name. This entry sees Bond play in a high stakes poker game to stop Le Chiffre from organising terrorism in a bid to control the world's stock market. From each stunning location we get a sense that time is of the essence. When Bond journeys through Madagascar to stop a bomb maker (who can free run) we feel that Bond has trouble keeping him in his sights and that is spectacular to watch as the greenery is definite eye candy and glorious to behold.

First off though, Daniel Craig is a ruthless and exhilarating Bond and whilst he may not be as cool as Pierce Brosnan or as humorous as Roger Moore, one thing for sure he has brought his own interpretation to the much loved character of 007, and boy is it welcome!

Each action element just adds to the adrenaline and tension of the scene. From the fight on the stairs to the collapse of a house in Venice; the stunts vary adding to the pure excitement of each scene and Daniel Craig's on screen confidence makes it all the better to behold.

As for the musical score, this has to be David Arnold's greatest score to date with the bond theme appearing only at the last scene of the entire movie, making all Bond fans shout with delight. However the greatest piece is Miami International which is surprisingly incredible to listen to and is guaranteed to keep you entertained even if it does last over ten minutes!

Also the acting is believable, even from the leading lady played by Eva Green, she handles the role superbly well. Making the character of Vesper Lynd the most complex of the entire series, Bond doesn't even go to bed with her until the last half an hour of the film! What's more is that she doesn't immediately succumb to Bond's advances and at first she seems wary. She is not as eager to see Bond as he is to see her.

Verdict: This is well and truly the best entry to a much beloved franchise, that has got back to the basics after much CGI tinkering in Die Another Day (it has the worst use of CGI ever for a Bond movie) and it feels realistic and gritty in its approach. The director (Martin Campbell) has done us proud. It's only a shame he wasn't able to direct Quantum of Solace which lacked an interesting plot and decent characterisation. All we can hope for is that Skyfall (released October 26th) can come back and make Bond fans forget about the mishaps of QoS.

10/10
4/10
inaction movie
onepotato222 January 2007
The new Bond movie has so much PR to do to convince you Daniel Craig IS the new Bond that it neglects (as cooing critics have) other aspects of the story. Watching people sit around playing cards is less interesting than seeing a Bond, any Bond, in action. A villain who cries blood is not interesting. Craig is great in spite of only being required to sit around playing cards, or in the films ridiculous conclusion sitting around in a wheel chair. The credit sequence here is pretty silly; a literalization of the icons of a deck of cards that kill.

A scene involving a threat to the villains girlfriend seems to be lifted from Altman's The Long Gooodbye.

But really, if Bond is going to care about someone, write the character well, and cast someone who has a broader range that this self-impressed 2-dimensional British cream pie (played by a very baaaaaad actress). Vesper Lynd s*cks. She is profoundly non-compelling. She didn't register a positive twitch in my ganglia, but somehow Bond is ga-ga and moves into caring-protector mode. She's the worst part of the movie.

At least I could sit through this one; some thing I haven't been able to do for about 2 atrocious decades of Bond films. And super-pinhead Denise Richards is relievedly nowhere in sight. It's amazing that this entire phenom did not result in an ounce of exposure for the previous satire version of C.R..
The new Bond (actor) was great; the movie was pathetic.
stepwallace12 December 2006
The new actor was great, I was impressed at how he settled into such a well known role. There was a sense of history - this is where Bond came from after all.

You felt that he was working his way through situations, making decisions, not simply a smooth, scripted (and inevitably successful) character.

The rest of the movie however... The romantic scenes felt like they'd been written by Lucas. The action scenes felt like they were aiming to be out performed by every other Bond film ever. There were no gadgets, some pretty poor attempts at Bond girls, and there was no villain. That's right, there was no villain - you might think there is when you start watching it, but wait till the end, then see how you feel.

This is quite possibly, the worst Bond film ever.

The first ten minutes, they were awesome. Best chase scene ever. Watch that much (on TV, DVD, youtube - not at the cinema) and turn the movie off. You'll have had your introduction to the new character, without this terrible movie to put you off seeing the next one.
1/10
1 dimensional clap trap
boarders28 December 2006
1 dimensional rubbish. Meant to be the start of the Bond story - hopefully it will be the end. Only the biggest of 007 fans can have enjoyed this clueless film. The start is hectic but holds little in the way of excitement. The 'love' interest is truly boring. The scars of battle heal too easily and the story gets more and more improbable. It is far, far too long. There are at least 3 occasions when you hope it has finished. Eva Green is far too light wieght be a real love interest. Is Craig good enough for Bond? No one can tell until he gets a decent script and a strong cast to play with him. My first cinema visit to watch a Bond - also my last!!
24 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Two-Wods Decribe This Bond Movie Bo-Ring
eric2620036 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There's always a rush in the air when a new James Bond film enters the theater. This movie is equally exciting as watching cheese mold. It has an action-packed beginning while in location in Madagascar. The very well-balanced bad guy on the run from Bond through a construction area, destroying everything in his path, the crane scene was quite remarkable and the actions gave us the promise of another exciting action-packed 007 film.

But instead we are treated to low-brow Bond women who provide something for the eyes, but nothing else in between, which pales in comparison to the other Bond movies 44 years before this one. The villain's blind eye bleeds is disturbing and at times it is too gross. The villain's mission is to obtain money at a gambling resort where the contestants must ante up $10 million and the winner keeping the loot all to themselves.

The plot is average at best,but the chemistry between Bond (Daniel Craig) and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is almost non-existent, which dries up the whole Bond story. When they appear on screen together, all the action drains out a lot and the romantic story comes into place demoting the action flick into a semi-action flick. Craig shows what he's truly of acting wise in an airport scene where Bond prevents a huge plane from getting off the ground.

I was eagerly awaiting for Q to show up and show Bond another one of his/her kooky gadgets. But not in "Casino Royale". No Q, no gadgets. Instead we're treated to a serenade of Judi Dench's M moan and groan and has no feel for the movie at all. Lady Dench, stick to period pieces. Many other scenes just drag on keeping your finger on the fast forward button.

I don't mean to sound harsh, the intentions to keep up with the modern stage and keeping up the traditions to the Ian Fleming novel is no piece of cake. "Quantum of Solace" was an improvement from "Casino Royale", it's just that in the James Bond movies is either a hit or a miss. This one is an unfortunate miss.

The long scenes almost put me to sleep (fortunately I wasn't too far from the coffee kettle at the time). The first half hour were some of the bests moments in "Casino Royale". But then, it just faded gradually along the way. It's a shame, really.

The Casino fights is poorly choreographed and not very accurate. You have the baddies kicking Bond's ass and Bond fighting back. From the bond films of long ago, (especially the Roger Moore era), the fight scenes were campy, but at least the Bonds of yesteryear's features an unsympathetic Bond. This sweet and sensitive Bond made me cringe.

The locations were fun to watch, it was the banal acting and the incoherent chemistry with the Bond women that forces us to search elsewhere for a super-spy movie who relies on his resources to outshine the evil-doers, with nifty gadgets that leaves you with a satisfying aftertaste begging you to watch this movie again.

You know what? Keep looking! You won't find it here. It had real good premise but failed miserably in many places. If you must, see it at least once, but don't expect much.
1/10
New Bond - it's awful !
jm-11625 November 2006
Oh my god - how bad is the new bond film

It's quite possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen - I truly wanted to leave the cinema.

I should of left during the opening credits - where were the naked female silhouettes ? The bond song ain't great either, despite having Chris Cornell singing it (ex Soundgarden and Audioslave)

OK I'll be fair - the first 80 mins are pretty good - then it's seems that the exec producer took over the script writing and decided to write another film and a lame (so very lame) love interest - obviously deciding that they had to make some type of chick flick appeal. The story just goes totally off track - it's as 30mins of the film was meant to have been left on the cutting room floor, but somehow it stayed in. And the love interest, was so much better done in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"

Craig is good (best bond for a long time) but the supporting cast is really poor. Eva Green is dreadful how did she get cast ? I've never got Judy Dench as M - wasn't a good time to replace her with someone that really could fill the shoes of Bernard Lee (the original M)

Continuity was pretty bad and some really slack filming eg it's pouring with rain but it's bright sunshine (happens twice in the film) The jungle scene is shot on the backlot at pinewood - complete with Silver birch trees!

Just how difficult can it be to make a good bond film !!
3/10
Massively superficial
sarastro723 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am not a Bond fan. I have watched most of the Bond movies, and to me virtually all of them are silly and nonsensical to the point of the preposterous. Sometimes they try to put some comedy and satire in there to make the lack of realism more endurable, but this rarely works. It consistently panders too much to the lowest common denominators.

And it's not because I'm not a fan of far-out action movies - I am! I happily watch a lot of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Seagal and Jackie Chan movies, and I thought Mission Impossible II was a better Bond movie than any Bond movie. And hell, so was The Bourne Identity.

But this new Bond movie? You know, I thought, from the almost uniformly good reviews and the obvious change in style, that Casino Royale might be different from the other Bond movies. And it was: It was bad for a lot of different reasons. Well, and a few of the same reasons, too.

I admit it had acting. But it had absolutely no story. And it was *incredibly* dull. Most of the action was not impressive, and the love story ended up not working. It would have worked if Vesper Lynd had been in earnest league with the bad guys. But she wasn't. She was forced into it. So why does that constitute an immense betrayal that lays the foundation for Bond's "disposable" attitude to women? Nope, it doesn't make a lick of sense. And this was the only thing in the movie with any chance of making sense, since we don't know who the bad guys were and obviously aren't supposed to care. This is immensely bad writing. I left the theater with a feeling of having taken absolutely nothing worthwhile with me from it. Even as aptly-called "empty entertainment", this movie had nothing to offer me, and it left me largely indifferent.

Note that in knocking this movie I'm not knocking Daniel Craig. I always thought he'd do a good job, and he did do a decent one. But he's not charismatic enough to truly carry a movie as superficial as this, the way it badly needed to be held aloft. And as for Mads Mikkelsen, of whom, as a Dane, I am naturally a huge fan; his decent performance did little to sway me in this movie's favor. He was intense in the torture scenes, but the poker scenes were themselves dangerously close to audience torture.

And as for Eva Green - hate to say it, but she's just not my type. She doesn't do a thing for me. She's kinda pretty, sure, and she can act, sure, but she's not my idea of a good-looking woman. (She did resemble Ursula Andress - who's not my type, either - a good deal, though.) She exudes a kind of aristocratic daintiness that I just have zero interest in. Now, young Jacqueline Bisset as Ms. Goodthighs in the 1967 movie - *she* was a sizzler! Anyway - another problem I have with the new Casino Royale was the drowning scene. Was a disgustingly protracted death scene really necessary? No, and it was, in my opinion, in damn poor taste.

Sorry, but my personal experience of watching this movie was that it was almost as dull as drying paint, and had less coherence. The only thing that was remotely well done was the acting and some of the characterization, and that's not even enough for this movie to approach mediocrity. I am at a complete loss to understand why it garnered rave reviews from virtually all quarters. Did the reviewers see a different movie than I did? Must have. To see here on IMDb that half of everybody who watched this so far have rated it a 10 out of 10 is the closest I have ever come to suspecting really foul play with the ratings here. I have great difficulty believing that so many people found this movie so good. Or maybe this movie is simply seen mostly by people who have no discerning bone in their body, and can only rate movies either a 1 or a 10. Barring a conspiracy, that has to be the explanation.

3 out of 10.
7/10
Not the Bond I Grew Up With
rtrhodes18 November 2006
I miss the Bond I grew up with. Thought the film was about 30 minutes too long. If the goal of the producers was to take Bond back to his roots, then why bring back the actress that played M in the role for the past four films. Also, if their goal was to make Bond appeal to a younger audience then based on who I saw at the theater last night, they missed the mark. The action scenes were great and Daniel Craig is a very good actor…but I miss my Bond I have come to know. I must say I was disappointed in the opening title sequence. A bit cheap looking and the song was not very memorable. If you want a Bond closer to the character in the books, then Daniel Craig is it.
36 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
You Got To Be Kidding Me !!
Imay_377 December 2006
okay! okay! i might hav got this one wrong, i watched it again recently on DVD and its not as bad as i first thought, its actually pretty good well it held my attention anyway. sometimes you got to watch a film more than once to make sure you agree with your first though!

C'mon guys............

This film is crap, in the same league as the awful Miami vice.......

Daniel craig was always gonna be a great bond - Layer Cake was good.

But this script is rubbish, abit of action a lot of poker like watching late night poker - (no offence to poker fans) but the only reason some people like this film is because they enjoy poker and gambling.

You cant have a poker match in a film, its not on.

OK! you get abit of action and romance buy yeah ! yeah !... big deal...

The problem is, bond fans and people who claim to have pride because its a British franchise rate the film high........... ........we'r all adults here, lets act like it....

Your exercise for today is think before you reply or comment !!

I'v seen great/good films and predictable crap !! but you got to compare films to the greats/good for them to be classed as greats/good....

I suggest you watch a good film for example off the top of my head, say, ..........GOODFELLAS or COLLATERAL and then watch this........

Always be truthful, say what you feel and ALWAYs DO THE RIGHT THING!!
2/10
Absolutely terrible as a Bond film!
sanjeev-sarpal6 December 2006
As a James Bond fan I was eager to see the latest release. However, from the outset the film reminded me of an Americanised super hero, such as XXX. The scripting was very poorly put together, as it began with Bond's first mission and then we where catapulted into the 21st century (M mentioned that, "since 9/11 ...."). The poor attention to detail, excessive violence and absolutely ridiculous events were akin to an episode of 24. Also, there was no music anywhere in the film (which was original Bond film makers style), and most regrettably no appearances of 'R' and his hilarious gadgets.

In summary, my message to makers of this film - Daniel Craig does not fit the part of James Bond!

My advice if you're a James fan, is don't waste your money on seeing this film!
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"I'm sorry, that last hand... nearly killed me"
godamndevil197720 November 2006
Casino Royale.

Was a bit hesistant about going to see a Bond film at the Cinema. If I was 12 years old again, I'd probably have snapped your hand off. That said, I'm glad I did. And while Casino Royale is seriously bathing in the limelight and hype right now, it is pretty damn good -- even if I have some reservations.

To the point -- Daniel Craig is a good Bond, probably the best since Connery. Nothing beats Connery tho. The thing that immediately bugged me about Craig, is he doesn't have a northern accent. We're not asking for a thick accent here, but if we're re-inventing Bond let's get him away from sounding like a politician. On the plus side, he looks the part, his character is crazy instead of suarve.

Casino Royale does share similarities to previous Bonds, and so it should. It also reflects todays big crime - terrorism and its sponsers. Rather than your typical Bond tho, where we have a larger than life evil villain, Casino is split over several bad characters, who non of which, are particularly ridiculous or "pet" lap cats. Shame.

For what it is, Casino is super-looking, intelligent, harder & more daring. It is a brilliant action thriller. It has probably the best on foot chase scene ever, great fights, nice women and probably my fave scene -- Bond being poisoned. What bugs me about all of this is (apart from him getting loved up), none of this "new era" Bond would have surfaced if it wasn't for the Bourne franchise (Bourne Identity & Supremacy). For me, Bourne is definitely the new leader,this is the reason why we're watching Daniel Craig pummel his enemies in the way he does. Is that a goodthing or bad thing..I'm not sure? I just think this new James-Bond-worship is yet to be earned.

-Paulo
10/10
you know his name
cinemamoviecars4 October 2021
This movie is perfect, not only we know how bond get his code number, we know the love of his life, his new car and why he is a great spy.

As gritty and dark can be, is great. Is a spy and a love story, with car chases and bond being human.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An over-long, over-saturated affair
jameslinton-752522 May 2016
I've tried to like James Bond. I really have. I watched a number of the old films, before I got bored and gave up. Casino Royale was my attempt to like them again, but it reminded me of why I gave up in the first place. Casino Royale is a bloated, over-long affair with a severe lack of realism and a woefully under-utilised Mads Mikklesen. He could have easily been one of the best parts of the film, but he was criminally under-used. Casino Royale wasn't a complete failure. I did like some of its stylistic elements, such as the flashback scenes that were shot in black and white, but for the most part I found it boring and unengaging.

Read my full review here:http://goo.gl/SQJaT4
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Entirely epic
UniqueParticle19 May 2020
Best of the Bond films, Daniel Craig is superb in shape madness in the best way possible! Enticing action fun with beautiful cinematography! Everything you'd want from this type of film; Casino Royale is entertaining enough for a James Bond fan or not. Refreshing experience I should've seen sooner.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great disappointment - pity (may contain SPOILERS)
wickey17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
47 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, I just came back from the cinema and I have to admit, that I am a huge James Bond fan and saw all 20 previous movies again in about last 3 weeks as a preparation for this one. So all my statements will be affected by that.

At first (again) the decision to make Craig new Bond is not good I believe. After watching the movie I am definitely convinced. Craig misses the style of Brosnan and Connery and becomes the with Dalton the worst Bond in the series.

Second thing that I could not bare and thought I will leave the theater - the dialogs (especially between Bond and Vesper) - some of them are just like cutted out from some cheap soap opera from 80s.. If there will be a poll about shooting the script writer, I will vote for yes.

Third thing - the plot - I mean I really enjoy the poker game and I like movies about it, but this? The half movie was like - oh, let's play some more poker, it is so much fun and excitement.. Not really my cup of coffee. Anyway multiple endings, absolutely not consistent plot with too many ups and downs..

Fourth thing - product placement. I know, that most of the movies has it, but this was like - oh look at all those Sony Vaio notebooks, that all secret agents have, oh look, he use Omega instead of Rolex ( -__- ) and of course all the vehicles around the world are Ford concern (Ford, Jaguar, Volvo, Aston Martin, Land Rover..)

Well it was good action movie with some dude, trying to be cool as James Bond, but he just doesn't have it. Pity, that it is a part of the series.

Anyway it is still a bit better, than the last movie Die Another Day. (that one is worst on my list, this one a place above - second worst from all.

6/10 (only for being average action movie and hoping to be better next time.) ________________________ Volvo rulezzz!!!
5/10
Casino Bore-All
jefsof-210 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
People have hailed this film as return to form for the franchise, when it fact it departs in major and detrimental ways from the form which built the Bond film franchise.

Craig is fine as the actor, but no one has come close to Connery yet.

Any true fan of the Bond films measures each film against the first few with Connery. You can't help it. You find yourself thinking "how would Connery play this scene?" or "How would this have been written in the 60s?" This is a good measuring rod, as those early films are classics for a reason. They were grounded in some kind of reality - the world of international espionage. Ever since the franchise went full bonkers with Moonraker, Cubby Broccoli and the subsequent franchise producers have struggled to find the right tone and bring the craziness back into something resembling the real world.

In journalism there is something called a Gross Factual Error. A reporter submits a story that spells a person's name wrong, or gets a date or location wrong. Journalism cannot tolerate such errors, getting such data right is the most fundamental exercise of the craft.

With Casino Royale there are several Gross Factual Errors that negate the film as a true Bond film. The first is a trend they've done in the franchise with Dame Judy Dench as M. They have personalized the relationship between M and Bond and this is very very lame. In the early films M was clearly Bond's boss and maintained a professional distance from his operative. Again and again the filmmakers have in recent films built a touchy-feely Oprah-esquire dynamic between M and Bond and it is simply anathema to the series.

A minor continuity error in Casino Royale with big story implications is when the cocktail waitress picks up the martinis from the bar and handles them by the rim to place them on the tray. This violates basic health principles and no professional (certainly not at a ritzy European casino) would make such a Gross Factual Error in drink service. A sharp eye like Bond would see the prints on the edge of the glass and refuse it. Craig's Bond did not. He was slipped a Mickey. Would that happen to a Connery Bond in a public place? Maybe alone with a girl he was going to have sex with, but not in a public place.

The most glaring error of all - and what negates Casino Royale utterly is the fight Craig gets into with the bad guys in the hallway of the hotel and in the stairwell. They were not his enemy. Connery-Bond would have noted them but he would not have engaged them. You don't waste your resources (physical exertion, danger from being injured or killed) fighting people not directly tied to your mission objective. These villains were tangental to his objectives. A Gross Gross Error. Further, the time-frame of events is ridiculous. The poker game goes on and on and on and Bond comes and goes from the game again and again. The whole point to building a climax to a story is to have a high-tension finale. You cannot sustain drama if you continually cut away from it. Terrible storytelling.

Despite the success the film had with style, production values, the casting of Craig and excellent exterior camera work, it was not a true Bond film and must be regarded as a failure.
3/10
When did Bond get so dull?
sbm200619 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK, there have been some pretty bad Bond movies out there. There have been movies like Moonraker, which strained the limits of credibility. There have been ones like Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever, which were so silly that they more closely resembled caricatures of themselves. But James Bond has never been dull.

Until now.

Take the traditional opening action scene. Up till now, every Bond film has opened up with a breathtaking action sequence with first rate stunts and sets. Bond jumped out of planes without a parachute, jumped AFTER planes without a parachute, chased down his foes with high-tech boats, helicopters, hovercraft..you get the idea.

This time? He beats up a guy in a bathroom and shoots another one in the head while sitting on his ass. Whoa. Jackie Chan, watch out.

That's not to say there aren't some halfway decent scenes in this movie. There is a chase scene as Bond tries to bring down a bomb-laden fuel truck before it takes out the world's biggest airplane. And the scene near the end involving a ongoing battle in a building sinking into a Venice Canal. For a typical action movie, this is pretty good but for a Bond movie, especially a 2hour+ one? Pretty slow. There have been many Bond movies with better action sequences..actually, I think ALL of them. Half the movie is spent watching Bond play poker, for crying out loud.

As for the ending..the word 'anticlimatic' doesn't do it justice. Bond finally tracks down the supreme villain..who's had maybe five-ten minutes of screen time before then..and shoots him in the leg. What about the real Bond villain, the scarred evil genius who weeps blood? Got killed off a half-hour ago by this guy. Shot in the head while he was getting ready to finish off Bond. Excuse me, have the writers ever actually WATCHED a Bond film?

Speaking of Bond, this guy doesn't resemble James Bond so much as Dirty Harry in a tuxedo. Gone is the witty banter, the clever gadgets that Bond ALWAYS found a reason to use no matter how obscure. This guy just kills people. Even Timothy Dalton was more likable than this.

My final recommendation is to stay away from this movie. Even if you're looking to round out your collection, this movie is such a departure from the typical formula you can be forgiven for leaving it out. The James Bond genre has been successful for over 45 years. Departing from its core principles is NOT a good idea.
7/10
Daniel Craig gets the royal 007 treatment...
moonspinner5521 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taking James Bond back to the basics--literally, back to square one--might have seemed a daunting task, as the 007 franchise had been waning in recent years (for a myriad of reasons) and the idea of a "prequel", if you will, may have been rather risky. Fortunately, this fined-tuned Bond is what a lot of fans have been clamoring for, and new addition Daniel Craig brings James into the 21st century with thuggish aplomb. Curt, compact and arrogant, he's a secret agent who isn't above making big mistakes, his own ego often times his worst enemy. James attempts to infiltrate a terrorist organization, and within the first ten minutes the film has globe-trotted so far across the map that you may be wondering who all these villains are and what their place in the story actually is (the movie opens curiously in black-and-white, with a confrontation and also with a flashback!). Judi Dench's "M" really lets James have it for 'needlessly' killing a bomber whom they hoped to interrogate, but she has a change of heart (indeed, quite a number of them) after Bond becomes involved in a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro with terrorist-operative Le Chiffre, a real poker-face (and asthmatic!) with a bloody tear duct. "Casino Royale" is jam-packed with excitement, it looks terrific and has many moments of action, romance, macho violence, and even beauty. The one thing it does lack is humor, but we may get more of that next round. *** from ****
1/10
Stunk
Rosella2829 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There was no set up of either character or plot, just a succession of chases and acrobatics, and that face in one mode throughout-grim!! This Bond is a wimp compared to Connery and Moore, being too "slight" and not very nice to look at, besides. There was no clue as to changes of scenes, and only seeing a highway sign for "Biscayne Blvd." did I know he was in Florida. We hated the whole thing and gave up before it finished...reruns on TV were more interesting than this drivel. I still wish that Clive Owens had been given the chance for this one, but doubt that even he could not have saved this dismal screen play. I can only hope for next time with a new well written script.
1/10
For The Love Of god... Stop calling it a 007 movie
eng-ahmedfayez24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
101 out of 208 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was really disappointed and angry after I saw this "Bond" movie, simply because this is not a Bond movie, there are certain characteristics for a Bond movie that weren't there. First of all, Daniel Craig is not suitable for the James bond personality and charisma, he looks like a Russian mafia operator or gangster not a British secret agent known to be classy and elegant.(maybe he has the body but not the looks or charisma)and don't get me started on his acting. Second, Eva green was a major failure she wasn't sexy as a Bond girl should be (Compare her to Halle berry and u will know what I mean) she is the worst bond girl ever Third, where r the gadgets?? James bond without gadgets??!!! Forth, The DB9 appears in the movie in a few scenes maybe two times only(parked), may I ask why isn't it being used????!!! It's very hard to image a Bond movie without a great super car involved in a car chase. fifth, what happened to the Music?? The classical James bond music wasn't there. sixth, I missed the words (Bond,james Bond) and (shaken not stirred), this 007 is not smart and doesn't have any sense of humor. Seventh, what's with that torturing technique didn't they find anything else, everybody in the cinema was laughing. So to sum it up this new "James bond" lakes the looks, gadgets, car, sense of humor and a decent looking girl. Not to mention the weak storyline, the bad scenes and the awful directing of Martin Campbell.
9/10
Daniel Craig: Blond, Brutish, Short, and the Best Bond in Years!
dtb25 November 2006
I saw the new, gritty, pulse-pounding CASINO ROYALE (CR) on opening weekend, and *IT ROCKS!!!* I sat grinning smugly from ear to ear, my faith in Daniel Craig as the new James Bond proving well-founded as the pumped audience cheered and carried on! After seeing him in LAYER CAKE and MUNICH, I knew Craig would make an awesome 007, despite all those tiny minds out there ready to reject him as being too blond, brutish, and short. :-) CR totally reboots the Bond series. Right from its spectacular, stylish black-and-white opening sequence in which Bond earns his "license to kill" status and then some, this movie kick-starts James Bond as an ass-kicker with shades of vulnerability and reserves of ruthlessness that do both Ian Fleming and Sean Connery proud! Even my mom, who swore she'd never love another Bond after her fave Pierce Brosnan, gushed about Craig after seeing CR, and there's much to gush about. For one thing, Craig's got the rugged good looks of a Cro-Magnon Steve McQueen, with bristly blond hair and laser-sharp blue eyes that could drill right through you, plus a buff physique that's shown off delightfully when he emerges from the surf in the Bahamas. It's the male version of Ursula Andress' introductory scene in DR. NO -- yes-s-s! :-) Heck, Craig's naked body is so amazing to behold, even villain Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen, who'd be an intimidating presence even without Le Chiffre's unnerving tears of blood, the result of an old eye injury) makes approving remarks about Bond's build as he tortures him in a scene that's faithful to Fleming's original novel while improving on it at the same time. However, I didn't appreciate the decision to change the film's high-stakes baccarat game to Texas Hold 'Em poker. Maybe they thought more moviegoers would identify with a poker game, but it seems to me that the sophistication of baccarat is more appropriate for a Bond movie. Despite that quibble, in addition to balancing intensity and dry wit that deftly kids the time-honored Bond movie traditions/clichés (as opposed to the overdone, forced jokiness that's plagued the series off and on since the Roger Moore years), Craig has a humanity that I feared had been formula'd out of 007. Take Bond's ever-evolving relationship with British Treasury Agent Vesper Lynd, as played by THE DREAMERS' Eva Green. While Green doesn't quite possess the screen presence or charisma of such classic Bond leading ladies as Andress, Honor Blackman, or Jane Seymour, she and Craig still strike enough sparks to be a good match physically and emotionally, each of them hardened loners who slowly grow to love each other (the result of Oscar-winner Paul Haggis contributing to the script, perhaps?), plus I like the wry twinkle in Green's aquamarine eyes. Most of the cast is terrific, including Dame Judi Dench returning as no-nonsense spymaster M (the flinty relationship between Dench's M and Craig's Bond feels more like a battle of wills here -- wholly appropriate, since this is essentially Bond's first case as a Double-0 agent), and Giancarlo Giannini as the shifty Mathis. Jeffrey Wright, another fave in our household, has a nice moment or two as Felix Leiter, Bond's CIA contact, but overall he gets surprisingly little to do. Oh, well, maybe Wright had scenes left on the cutting room floor, or maybe he'll have more to do in subsequent Bond films. The action scenes owe more to films like RESERVOIR DOGS than previous Bond films (which should make original CASINO ROYALE fan Quentin Tarantino happy :-), and I'm not just saying that because two of these scenes take place in bathrooms! :-) There's a down-and-dirty, kinetic fleetness to CR's action scenes (with some cool and unexpected locations, including the macabre Body Worlds exhibit and the Miami Airport. Between CR and the 2002 comedy BIG TROUBLE, the Miami Airport is certainly an embattled place, at least on film! :-), especially a wild foot chase between Craig and Sebastien Foucan that takes them through a construction site and into Foucan's embassy -- and with this new, no-holds-barred Bond, if this creep thought he'd be safe in his embassy, he was kidding himself! Forget Shaft -- the new Daniel Craig version of James Bond is a bad mutherf***er! :-) Long may he reign!
1/10
Sorry...Wrong James Bond... Wrong Everything....
hsc211020 January 2007
They really made a mess out of this one. This is by far the worst version of James Bond Series.

I'm sorry but the new guy for the part just won't do it for me. He doesn't act and certainly doesn't look the part. I highly doubt that they are gonna make another James Bond movie with this new guy. I just feel sorry for the guy. He just doesn't fit in...sigh~

Not only that, the plot had lots of holes and left me wonder what the writers were thinking about by the end of the movie. Half of the movie was way too boring with lots of dumb clichés that were already used numerous times in the same series over the last thirty years or so.

In short, I'm so sorry but I have to say 1/10 for this movie because it made me feel like I wasted my hard-earned eight dollars and fifty cents! If I were you, I would wait for either DVD or a video.
1/10
Not a nice Bond movie
vcupid237 March 2007
I don't know what is wrong with you all , every one is talking about that movie as it is a great one , but in my point of view , it is not nice at all .. first , in compare to other bond movies , we cant not see any cars chase , any real action scene.. As you can see , this movie didn't cost a lot , as other Bond movies , where is the huge explosions , where is the projects of world controlling mad masters under the sea , or the desert .. We cant see any submarines , any real fight , even Bond's super car has nothing to do except being crashed .. I don't know why they didn't cost the movie a lot , i am sure that any Bond's movie of 70's costs more than this 2006 one .. any way , the movie make me disappointed
25 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Russian 007
gavin694226 June 2015
Armed with a license to kill, Secret Agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) sets out on his first mission as 007 and must defeat a weapons dealer in a high stakes game of poker at Casino Royale, but things are not what they seem.

Why do I think Daniel Craig looks like a Russian? I don't know, but that's what I think. And it ruins the role for me. I don't care if James Bond is blonde, brunette, black or white. But he should look English, and for some reason Daniel Craig looks like Vladimir Putin to me.

That being said, I think the story and action are good, and it is great to see Mads Mikkelson here, before he really hit it big with "Hannibal". It is always nice to see a European actor go international. (He was great in "The Hunt", by the way, which is a must-see for any Mikkelson fan).
8 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Great Film, Wrong Bond!
christiansmovies3 January 2010
This is finally a Bond Film again that's worth to be called a Bond Film... only deficit is the Actor... I can still accept the him in this one, he plays well, and the script is basically a prequel where Bond is actually becoming the Bond! But whoever is a true Bond fan, knows that this guy is not a true Bond. Clive Owen would have been a better pick! Bond was always a superhero in a suit... but never a blatant superhero like h-man or superman - muscles galore, shaved chest... etc... the old ones including Timmothy had charm and cleverness that Daniel Craig cannot deliver! Other than that - super fun and suspense Bond Film! And what else I really liked about this is the fact that they where able to top their chases scenes with brilliance. Bond Films have done it all - Boats, Tanks, so on... so how about a chase by foot that kicks ass!!!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not enough cheese !!
mark-hughes21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Am I wrong in wanting more Cheese Royale from James Bond? Not enough cheese and a movie taking itself too seriously. Disappointed with the latest incarnation. Expecting a good old romp and ended up with a movie with a half-hearted love affair, an embittered 007 and no sense of us having been all saved from some world disaster by a debonair hero.

James was unconvincing. No charm. No presence. More gay icon than lady killer, expressionless and dull. The Bond girl was a pretty plain impression of the alluring beauties of old, all caught up in the psychology of it all.

As a one-time semi-professional poker player, I lost respect for the movie during the poker scenes, central as they were to the story. It was like the old movies when the piano player had obviously never played a note in his life and twiddled his fingers on top of the keys. No-one playing those kinds of stakes would make the plays they did.

Positives were the chase scenes, the eye-bleeding bad guy was nice and nasty and of course the pretty cars.

Mark
2/10
A Bond movie for those who don't like Bond movies
adjorgkilu4 July 2007
I have watched all 21 Bond movies made so far. Casino Royale is not the worst-made of the series, just the most offensive one. The only other time the Bond franchise attempted a complete departure from the established Bond formula the result was the complete flop of License To Kill, which led to a change of direction and the fantastic Goldeneye. But unfortunately this time the experiment was a success, so I'm afraid of what will follow. Both License To Kill and Casino Royale have been praised as "a return to the Fleming spirit", when in truth they are nothing more than shameless attempts to cash in on popular fads of their time: the Bronson / Arnold / Stallone action films of the 80s in the case of License, the Bourne / Transporter films in the case of Casino. Daniel Craig is not a bad actor, but he is no doubt the worst Bond impersonator so far, his lack of class and charisma is almost astonishing. Of course his "do I look like a give a damn" line and his fighting prowess will wow 15-year-olds, but those who remember Connery, Moore, Dalton (in The Living Daylights), Brosnan, even that weirdo Lazenby, may feel like crying at what has become of their beloved icon. Of course you could ask the producers why this supposedly first mission of 007 is set in 2006 and if that means they have dared to completely write off 44 years and 20 films that allowed them to make this one, but their response will probably be "Do we look like we give a damn?".

If Casino Royale didn't pretend to be a part of the Bond series, I would give it 6 out of 10, but it does, so it's a 2.
1/10
Vile and violent - a sad reflection on the public's taste in the 21st century.
Paddy-4914 December 2006
I confess to have only been able to watch the first twenty-five minutes of this movie before I walked out in disgust. If you like gratuitous violence, incomprehensible plotting, comic book characters and the full gamut of action movie clichés then Casino Royale is for you. The film has been superbly marketed and will no doubt pander brilliantly to the facile tastes of those that think that murder and mayhem is fun, and who want to suspend reality. I am sure that the film will be a huge commercial success. But I found it vile and a deeply saddening refection of what is the public's taste in the 21st Century.

Does it matter that the world's twelve-year-olds will be going in large numbers to see this trivial little film? I think that it does as at least a few of them will think that this farrago bears some resemblance to reality - I wonder how they will respond in how they live their lives? Hardly peacefully!
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Eva Green Is Hot
qwtymsv4 September 2020
What a woman. Total babe. I would protect her too if she were mine (or not). Women so slim push up the ratings of course, but we expect no less from a Bond Girl (short hair Halle Berry aside). The rest film was OK but too much cards and casino and they could have devoted more time to the action. Also, two films with the same name? Come on!?!
37 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow is the only word that fits
limejockey19 November 2006
OK I'm convinced. I've been a Bond fan since I got to see the older stuff on TV back in the 70s when I was a kid. The movies have gotten wackier over the years, partly because technology has allowed the movies to get that way and partly because people come to see the craziness that is a Bond film these days,not that I minded. They were what they are and didn't pretend they were anything else. Well fans of the early Sean Connery films can rejoice again because the Bond from the early 60's has been resurrected. Daniel Craig is about as perfect a choice as you can have in 2006 terms for a Bond film based on what was the first book in the actual series. The script is excellent, the acting first rate across the board, and even Judi Dench gets to show some backbone and toughness along with the human qualities she has been always been able to bring to it. The girls are beautiful and lethal when necessary, the stunts are fantastic and realistically performed, the only reason this didn't get my first 10 is this is one long movie, apparently the longest in the series, not that it drags much but I'm sure the editors could have chopped some down somewhere. In any case a fine ride for fans and might get a few converts along the way.
10/10
In the top 5 Bond movies!
supertom-316 November 2006
Bond is finally back. Sure he's done 21 films now, but not since the heady days of Connery at his peak, have the Bond films excelled, and been beyond cartoony gadgets, outlandish set pieces, and cheesy double entendres. Now all those elements have always been part and parcel of the Bond series, but as the series has progressed through the Roger Moore period, it's been less about the stories and the character of JB himself. A few have been different to varying degree's of success, such as the not so popular Dalton entries, to the most recent decent Bond, Goldeneye. However CR succeeds in bringing Bond down to earth a bit more and inviting us to delve into his character a bit more.

Goldeneye helmer Martin Campbell returns once more, with success again. Not only does he have an edgier script to work with, he's allowed to put his stamp on some outstanding action scenes too. The action feels necessary and part of the story, not merely an excuse to do something outlandish for the sake of it, such as the hideously gimmicky Thames set action in The World Is Not Enough, or just about everything in the near Moonraker cheesefest, Die Another Day. Here the action fits into the story, and excels without feeling gimmicky. Indeed CR features some of the most jaw dropping set pieces put to film including a superb free-running chase, and a car chase on an airport runway. Aside from anything else, it's all captured with some flair, sadly lacking from the flat direction of the last two Bond films especially.

The main question of course, is about the validity of Daniel Craig as the latest 007. Many were sceptical, questioning the blonde hair, the height, the looks, amongst other things. Plus the worries that Bond would become too po-faced and serious like Dalton. In truth Daniel Craig is most like Timothy Dalton if comparing to the Bond actors canon. But he's got the material to make an edgier Bond work, which Dalton didn't have in the far too Americanised films he did. Craig is a far more serious Bond, playing him on his first proper assignment. However Craig is allowed to express some Conneryesque charm too. And when the action kicks in, he holds his own, performing most of his own stunts. Without doubt Craig is a worthy Bond. Similarly Eva Green represents one of the best Bond girl's in years. A near unknown, she works in her role where the previous three Bond girls (the rather pointlessly sassy Halle Berry in particular). Green is also extremely attractive and with the kind of European look that evokes the Bond girls of yesteryear. Bond villains too have become quite lame in recent times, yet Mads Mikkelsen is excellent and has a real intensity as Le Chiffre.

The film isn't merely a lazily and sloppily produced effort (or lack of) that the producers have been guilty of in previous years. This is brilliantly shot and cut, and the cinematography is eye-catching and atmospheric, not flat and DP 101 like the last film. Elsewhere David Arnold makes up for his overwrought last few Bond scores with a more low key and effective one here, although his and Chris Cornell's theme isn't great (then again anything beats Madges Die Another Day). The only negatives really are a somewhat segmented feeling in the plot, and the very lengthy running time, but these are minor quibbles in a top class Bond outing.

Overall this is a great action film that has taken a leaf from the Bourne books, and kept things grounded, and remembered the plot. It's every bit as good as those movies, and ranks in the top 5 Bond movies. ****1/2
6/10
Live and Let Spy
bittersweet-me25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Many moons ago, my parents took my sister and I to the drive thru to see DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. I'm sure sis and I would have preferred a Disney movie at the time, but even at our age, it was pretty impressive when Sean Connery got his Mustang up on two wheels. Between that fateful starry night and now, I have ended up seeing every James Bond movie.

So the idea of working off some Thanksgiving day turkey and taking my son 30 years later to see CASINO ROYALE was fun. This movie features Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. And a new James Bond with an advertised new attitude. No more invisible cars, rocket back packs, laser beam wrist watches, or ejector seats.

I had seen Daniel Craig in LAYER CAKE and MUNICH and was already a fan, and he brings great acting chops, athleticism, and toughness to the role. Supporting Craig with their own wonderful acting are Judi Dench as "M' and Eva Green as the female lead.

And the villain of the movie? Goldfinger, Dr No, no the real villain is the pacing. The movie starts off all action, then builds the plot, then gets into the high stakes poker game and kind of bogs down. The writers even try to throw in some Idi Amin African type baddies in the middle of the poker game to break the monotony. Finally the poker game is over, and James Bond jumps in his Aston Martin to chase after the bad guys. Everyone in the movie theater straightened up in their seats for the finale. 30 seconds later, he is out of the car, with barely one fast slide through a curve.

1/2 hour later the movie is still going, and at the beginning of every new scene, the people in front of me 'sigh'. Finally the movie ends and a sigh of relief comes out of the crowd, no cheering, no applause, just relief. No one wanted to walk out in the middle, you want to see how the characters end up, but the 'natives' were definitely restless.

We walked into the theater at 7:10 and walked out at 10:00. If they would have made the movie 1/2 hour shorter and had that car chase everyone wanted for the finale, they would have made 100 million dollars more.

So the verdict is keep Craig, fire the screenwriter, kudos for attempting to have James Bond grow up, now if only I would grow up.
1/10
DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY - the worst Bond movie ever made
chewedpupp26 November 2006
I should have known how bad it was going to be by the opening credits. Normally they are a sight for sore eyes - fabulous music made by top artists (Madonna, Duran Duran, etc.) - gorgeous writhing women and erotic, interesting sequences - and this just the opening credits. None of that in this James Bond - the worst opening credits ever - images of cards (hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs) everywhere and that was it - not to mention the lousy music - but that was the tip of the iceberg. James Bond normally means amazing gadgets (cars that can disappear with invisibility shields, cars that turn into planes or submarines, wristwatches that double as satellite transmitters or tracking devices or detonators, pens that are miniature explosives, or containing poisoning gas etc. In Casino Royale, the most exciting gadget was a portable defibrillator - there were NO other gadgets in the ENTIRE movie (OK, there were cellphones and laptops, but nothing else.) Forget that the story itself was overly contrived and ridiculously hard to follow, the movie was two and a half hours long with one entire hour dedicated to them sitting in the Salon Prive of a casino playing high stakes poker, staring at each other and raising the stakes. Who wants to see that in a James Bond movie!!!? For goodness sake,we expect our James Bond to perform impossible stunts, to attract and seduce beautiful woman after beautiful woman - THAT'S the James Bond we all know - suave, debonair, sophisticated, a man of mystery, intriguing, with a presence - able to deliver one-liners that pack a punch, reducing the audience to chuckles - clever, witty repartee. There wasn't ONE single "James BOnd" type scene in the entire movie. It wasn't even a good action flick! It was so long and so boring! The only scene worth watching was towards the beginning when James is running after a man in Madagascar - what an athlete this man is (not James, the man on the run) - doing "free running" - running up walls, leaping over objects, shimmying up cranes - TRULY the star of the entire movie and the only thing worth seeing. The rest of the movie was dismal, pathetic, boring, and stupid. They never explained what "Ellipsis" meant - yet that apparently was the word seen on all cellphones.

Ava Green acted like a wooden block,

There was absolutely no chemistry between them and frankly, zero charisma. James Bond plots are supposed to be impossible - with "baddies" trying to take over the world but foiled by 007 - keeping us on the edge and filling the screen with action - this plot was just silly, contrived, long, non-sensical, overly complicated and completely non-James Bond.

Even compared to a Mission Impossible type of film, it was appalling - What about the unnecessary but brutal torture scene? That's not the kind of movie I'd want my family to see and yet James Bond is supposed to be a family film - for everyone to see - it really was unnecessary and ugly and what was the point behind it? Nope - not the James Bond we know and love and my advice is, give it a miss.
1/10
Yuck!
SunStreaked25 November 2006
Not even close to Bond. Sorry, to all those Daniel Craig fans, but truly awful. Bond, set today, with no gadgets? Bond, set today, with Judy Dench, as M? Bond with the face of a villain, no sex appeal, no charisma, no yum? As an action flick, minus the "Bond" headline, so-so, but Bond? Not even close. Have seen every Bond movie, more than once, this Bond has the face of a bad guy...this is not Bond, not even close. Set this movie in the 60's, attempt to believe that this guy, as ordinary as he is, may just possibly be the beginning, OK, major stretch of the ability of disbelief, but set now? Not a chance. Waste of money, waste of time, waste of everything. Sorry to have spent the money, sorry to have hoped for a taste of something new, mostly sorry for bad taste in mouth after this awful, awful movie. Mostly sorry to have not waited until it was on TV for free. Bond is an ideal, there is a formula, that is what makes it Bond. Give this guy a shower and the most expensive cologne and still say, no thanks, pass, on the sex appeal. So, my main thought is major ugh!!! Or rather, yuck!!!
29 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A visual disaster!
Maciste_Brother28 November 2007
This new Bond film is one mighty ugly film, almost rivals LIVE AND LET DIE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER as the ugliest 007 movie of the series. If there was one thing you can rely on with James Bond movies, it is their production values: the cinematography, the sets, the lighting, etc. They are, for the most part, visually arresting films even if the content is basically the same and shallow. Ken Adams created some of the greatest cinematic sets ever made for many 007 adventures. Those films were often shot by some of the best cinematographers. So when I watched a HD broadcast of CASINO ROYALE on my HD TV I couldn't believe how visually ugly it was.

The cinematography is your typical super-slick over-processed one so popular with music videos or disposable direct-to-video films and oddly enough, with films produced by SONY. The lighting had a constant golden hue and I quickly got tired of looking at it. The massive close-ups of the actors didn't help much. The sets were, for the most part, horrendous and repellent from beginning to end. M's bedroom set is the funniest bedroom set I've ever seen anywhere, on film or in real life. Seriously, does anyone really believe M sleeps in a bedroom like that? When I saw it I thought it was a joke and I laughed out loud. Then there are the actors, almost all homely with zero star quality, including the new buff guy playing 007. His pouting was really distracting. And the Bond girl, well, the less said the better. The only tip I'm going to give her: get some Proactive. The soundtrack tried to emulate John Barry's style but missed it by a mile.

The story is awful and the tone attempted to be humorless, gritty and realistic but someone should clue the current producers that the James Bond series didn't last over 45 years because of their seriousness or realism.

All in all, awful on every level. Please do not let Martin Campbell direct another Bond film.
6/10
It was okay, but could've been more thrilling
SafReviews15 October 2021
This is the first James Bond movie I have watched and it wasn't quite as good as I expected. I thought the plot was decent and it had some good twists, but at times there's not much excitement in the movie and I felt like it was a bit longer than it should've been. I thought the action scenes were okay, but not the best. I've watched too many action movies which is probably the reason why I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I should have as it doesn't have anything I've not seen before.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond Revisited
guybee124 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Having seen many of the James Bonds through the years and read the books, I was intrigued and disappointed by the newest addition. Craig did a reasonable job. He is not as dashing and suave as Sean, Pierce or Roger - but he does bring a unique attribute of style and strength.

My biggest gripe with the movie was the torture scene. It was unnecessary and served little purpose to bring it the level of detail they choose to show. Obviously, it was gruesome as any torture might be - but why give people ideas? And more to the point, it did not further the story line. Torture is torture.

Additionally, it seemed like a movie that would never end. It built to a conclusion and then came back for more at least three times. Obviously, it had to finish the story, but the editing could have been better. All and all, it was the weakest of the Bond flicks in my opinion.
3/10
Not a good James Bond movie
lisamba8 April 2007
This movie I think was really bad. It was very volient, no cool gadgets, sense of humor was not even there(in some of the movies they have little sense of humor) And his speaking voice was hard to understand. I don't understand how some people say this is close to the James Bond. None of the James Bond were this volient before and there was no cool gadgets to help him be the secret agent. This new Bond I thought was too old and ugley(sorry) Has too many wrinkles he looks 50 or so. The story lines was pretty good but I don't think that they had to be as volient in the torcher as they were. I think they need a better looking Bond, more gadgets, someone who can speak clearly and not mumble their words and to tone down the volience. I hope the other James Bond movies are better because if they are like this from now on this will be my last James Bond movie.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No Bond
zizu337 December 2006
If someone saw in this movie "Bond , James Bond" please let me know...what I saw was RAMBO 10 or maybe "Astalavista baby" , this guy "Bond" look more like a boxer more than a secret agent.

No really !?! who vote 10 really think that was a Bond movie? what kind of special equipment he have? kids have more gadgets today then him...and please don't comment my English...this does't make the difference , I saw the movie with my own eyes.

Let's talk about script...all movie was more like a poker game ...oooh was exactly this , even the title say that Casino...

Since when secret services play poker with a terrorist ? Was much easy to kill him , but if they don't play poker we don't have a movie about POKER .

Life it's gambling !

BAD "BOND" MOVIE!
5/10
MAY slightly spoil movie, small amount of plot info
sHOEbOXED30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino royale is a film which you love or hate, I personally hated it, though I highly recommend you watch the film and see for yourself.

The acting good, Daniel being a new look James Bond, fitting the part well and adding more 'kick-ass-ness' and cold blood killing to the role and ,thankfully, the film is slightly more realistic.

Though, in my eyes, there are many things which could have been done much better. The film seams to have very little which needed to be in there, lots of sense are pointless and the ending seams to go on forever, I'm not joking about here, the film is about 30 mins. to long,which spoiled the whole movie. Also, there are REALLY REALLY stupid parts, such as Bond is poisoned, gets to his car, goes into a fit, injects some stuff into his neck, passes out, gets saved by his girly friend and walks back to the casino as if he just had a walk around the park. Didn't anyone think that was just a little bit OTT? obviously not.

This film could have a lot going for it , but i fear it is nearly the end of the great James Bond.
5/10
Sorry I like the previous films
omarbey21 November 2006
Well, I beg to differ, Casino Royale is a good action movie but is it a good Bond movie? I mean imagine if it was just an action film without the "Bond" tag, you would have accepted it as your usual summer action flick. But where is Bond, THE James Bond ? The opening scene is inverted, meaning the action sequence (the chase, well made) comes after the opening credits, not before, and as a Bond fan I would have hoped for a dazzling opening especially that this Bond is new. Daniel Craig keeps the same straight face all through the film, maybe not wishing to "over" do it,but I am one who did not read any of Ian Fleming's books, so I really don't care if the main character in Casino Royale is closer to what the author intended; previous films always showed a colorful Bond, with a great sense of humor, and not taking himself too seriously all the time. And who says that we audience don't like the gadgets? Scenes with gadgets in previous films are always great fun (except, granted, the one about the invisible car, this was too much...), as for the gambling table scenes in Casino Royale, I think they lacked the sense of menace and tension that previous films always conveyed when stakes were high in similar situations. I hope in the next Bond film Daniel Craig "loosens up" a bit, and be given a dialog with more panache, he doesn't have to be a humane Bond, let him be James Bond.
6/10
Visually exhilarating, but there is something missing
TheLittleSongbird30 April 2010
Don't get me wrong I really like James Bond, after seeing the superb From Russia With Love with Sean Connery(my personal favourite Bond), and I really wanted to see Casino Royale as it promised to be exhilarating and exciting. After seeing it for myself, I thought exhilarating yes in terms of visuals but it isn't quite exciting enough.

Starting off with the good things are that chiefly the cinematography, stunts, effects, editing and scenery are absolutely incredible. Also the sound is very impressive, the first action sequence was utterly mind blowing thanks to the visuals and the sound effects. The score by David Arnold is also good and authentic enough, it isn't John Barry, but it has some rousing themes. Mads Mikkelsen makes a brooding and intense Le Chiffre, while Eva Green is stunning and poised as the sexy Vesper Lynd and Judi Dench the brilliant actress she is is a suitably frustrated M.

However, there are some components I didn't like so much; I found that the pacing was very uneven here, after the first action sequence, there are some parts that are fairly pedestrian. Also I wasn't particularly particularly taken with the theme song, it was typical Bond, but it was also so-so. That said though, it is better than the one Madonna sang, what was that song again? Daniel Craig I had mixed feelings about, while he had the intensity behind his beautiful eyes, while he had the body and while he had the grit and athleticism, what he didn't quite have was the charisma. Some of the story is uneven as well, there are some nice, well-constructed parts but there were others that felt unnecessary and not quite so well thought out, the torture scene especially. In terms of dialogue, some of the exchanges between Bond and Vesper Lynd are delicious and seductive, but the ones with Le Chiffre weren't quite so good, some of it didn't have the spirit of Bond.

Overall, not the best Bond in my opinion, but it is not unwatchable or anything. 6/10 Bethany Cox
8/10
Daniel Craig makes a strong debut in the film that brought Bond back in a big way
IonicBreezeMachine28 December 2021
Having recently been promoted to Double-0 status, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is sent on the trail of the international financiers of the world's terrorists by MI6 head, M (Judi Dench). The trail leads Bond to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), the money handler for several terrorist groups, warlords, and international criminals who handles his clients money while also using it to make high end investments that will pay off from their criminal activities through ripples in the market. Bond sets out to bankrupt Le Chiffre teaming up with Her Majesty's Treasury agent, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), as Bond finds himself tenuously holding onto his humanity through the dark, tangled, and violent world of international espionage.

Following the critical backlash to the previous Bond movie, Die Another Day, EON Productions were prompted to reboot the series and bring the Bond character closer to the roots of his Ian Fleming origins as opposed to the gadget using quipper that had become the subject of parody due to the nature of the Bond formula, effectively starting over from scratch and cancelling a high profile spin-off featuring Halle Berry's character Jinx. Directed by Kiwi director Martin Campbell, who helped to resurrect interest in Bond with the Pierce Brosnan debut in GoldenEye, the movie reintroduces Bond for the era of the spy film as redefined by the Jason Bourne series of films. Casino Royale has many of the familiar Bond elements, but sidelines the gadgetry and fantastical aspects of the series in favor of a more grounded character based approach.

Daniel Craig's take on Bond is really strong and falls in line with Timothy Dalton's take on the character where Bond is portrayed more as a steely eyed assassin rather than the devil may care playboy that characterized the later Connery films and Moore era. When Bond kills someone in the movie he doesn't brush it off with a snarky quip and we see the expression on Bond's face as the deaths of those around him begin to weigh on him. Craig's Bond is a very human take on Bond and in a way feels like it's aiming for the same level of pathos that was attempted in On Her Majesty's Secret Service albeit striking a better balance with a more well suited actor. The rest of the cast is nicely fleshed out as well with Judi Dench reprising her role as M from the Brosnan films, but giving a harder more detached take on the character that gives the character added dimensionality to her mentor relationship with Bond. Eva Green is also well realized as Vesper Lynd who makes a strong counterpart to Bond and you buy into their relationship and become invested in it. Mads Mikkelsen is wonderfully despicable as Le Chiffre whose cold calculating presence in the film makes him a despicable force and a worthy foe for Bond to square off against.

The action sequences are well done and are fittingly spectacular but forego the sillier aspects of prior entries in favor of a more scaled down approach where the action sequences feel like they have weight gravity and consequence. Two standout sequences are some wonderful chase sequences in Madagascar and Miami with Campbell doing a good job of showing the flow of events and establishing a strong sense of spatial geography with some tense death defying sequences that keep you engaged.

Casino Royale brings Bond back to his roots and brings the characters to the forefront in place of gadgets and outlandish action sequences. Craig brings a unique approach to Bond getting in touch with the character's humanity as well as the lingering effects felt by his work in the field and the ensemble of Judi Dench, Eva Green, Jeffrey Wright, and Mads Mikkelsen makes for a solid adventure in the James Bond series that is a strong start for a new Bond.
6/10
Not the way to reinvent a franchise.
desveaux16 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw a man Completely unlike any other Bond before him. He acts similarly to Tim Dalton, which isn't good in my book. Dan Craig would be excellent in some parts, but both were way too serious for my money. A bit of humor was always a nice part of the 007 series for me & all I've talked to about Bond. This movies has very little humor, but is deadly serious. And what do we begin with:?" Bond as Batman!! (I mean, not that he's dressed as Batman, but he's jumping around as Batman might.) I didn't care for it.

But really confused me was this: on the documentary (disk), the director explained they "had" to replace Pierce Brosnan with Craig, because this is a prequel & Brosnan would be too old to play a character set in the beginning of the series. If that is so, why is the movie set in 2006?! Also, why do we have Judi Drench playing M again?! The director said, he just "couldn't" replace her. So, that means Brosnan Could be replaced, right? But, as it's set in the present day & we have the Dame Drench, I didn't know what was going on. I wasn't sure, if they was trying to say, they had replaced 007 with another man named James Bond or were they simply being inconsistent with the story?!

The old music was also gone, save for a bit of it on the closing credits nor did I care for the main credit's song, either. And instead of seeing beautiful women exit the ocean, we see Mr. Bond (not my cup of tea, you see?!)

I'm not necessarily against reinventing a franchise, either. However, to see how to Really do it, watch Batman Returns...Now That how to do it!
8/10
Casin Royale A Worthy Addition To The Series
tburke8518 May 2009
Casino Royale is a worthy addition to the series there are a few flaws but it's still an entertaining action adventure. The film tells the story of Bonds early years when he's promoted to 00 status. Daniel Craig has the difficult task of playing the iconic British spy James Bond coming in after Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and most recently Pierce Bronsan who have also played the character. Craig is great in the role and completely believable as Bond the British spy who is willing to kill in order to protect his country. The supporting cast overall turn in solid performances including Eva Green as Vesper Lynd a potential love interest for Bond, Mads Mikkelsen as the villain corrupt banker Le Chiffre, and Giancarlo Giannini as fellow agent Mathis. Jeffrey Wright as CIA Agent Felix Leiter and Judi Dench as M make the best of their small roles in the film who are Bond's allies in his quest to stop Le Chiffre. The rest of the cast also turn in good performances. The action which can get over the top sometimes is exhilarating and everything else in the film works. One of the movies flaws is the the running time of 144 minutes did make it feel sort of long and the pace was slow at times. Another one was the lack of a real bad ass villain (which some recent films also lacked). I mean Mikkelsen does what he can with Le Chiffree but his character isn't that menacing or scary (like most recently the late Heath Ledger's Joker or Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter to name a few). He seemed like an average villain and not much of a threat to Bond. But other than that it's still a good action movie with equally impressive performances by it's cast. Well done.
8/10
Royale flush
Jay_Exiomo15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Since his inception by Ian Fleming in 1952 and his first cinematic personification by Sean Connery in 1962, debonair British spy James Bond has become a contemporary icon. With now over a score of film installments, plus dozens of less-than-successful copycats and handful of spoofs, the pop culture-oriented public have since felt quite pleasurable excitement to this magnetic character.

However, as the film franchise continually expanded, it grew more and more formulaic and showed less than impressive results. While the Lee Tamahori-helmed "Die Another Day" had its moments, it suffered from failing to realize what the series is all about, focusing on too much mindless CGI-driven action rather than working on the old-fashioned charms of its lead character. Then Pierce Brosnan drops his license to kill and a relatively obscure actor in Daniel Craig is introduced, complete with those prejudicial criticisms and jokes (yeah, "James Blond", sheesh). By then, the outcome of the newest film from the 007 franchise was hanging on the edge.

Fortunately, just as with a glitched computer system that's got a tad too many running processes, director Martin Campbell ("Goldeneye") and scriptwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (Hollywood It-Boy) Paul Haggis reboot the franchise in brilliant form with "Casino Royale" (based from Fleming's first Bond novel with the same name), reinitializing Bond back to his early days shortly after obtaining his double-O status. There's still enough action scenes but this Bond movie's less interested in the action than the actor. Consequently, there's more traditional trappings and less pseudo-technology.

Starting with a brief prologue shot in black-and-white and a retro-ish opening credit sequence, the film immediately proceeds to a mad chase scene across Madagascar between Bond (Craig) and a bomb-maker which ends up in a disaster. Reprimanded by M (Judi Dench) for his recklessness, Bond takes matters into his own and heads to Bahamas where he sees a possible lead in terrorism treasurer Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Eventually this leads him to Casino Royale in Montenegro where he crashes a high-stakes poker game with hopes of making the terrorism investments go bad while being paired with the sultry Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) as a secret agent for the British treasury.

Of course, much of the film's gist lies in its lead actor. And yes, Craig is excellent as Bond, exuding charismatic strength and emotional depth during the quieter scenes while providing an effective masculine drive when his character is in his element. Bond has absolutely never been well-played since Sean Connery yet perhaps only the first time given depth by a serious portrayal with little trace (if any) of the cartoonish qualities. He's ably supported by equally effective performances of Dame Dench, Mikkelsen, and Jeffrey Wright as a CIA detective. No Q and Miss Moneypenny, though.

As for the trademark Bond girls, Bond gets jiggy with two of them here - Solange (Caterina Munro) and Vesper (Green). Of the two, it is Green who gets more screen time in which she brings a highly intellectual charm coupled with just the right amount of fragility. Her chemistry with Craig, though, is a bit too enhanced by the script's romantic angle that veers dangerously close to getting the better of the movie's overall dynamism.

That said, the film drags towards the end with a little over two hours worth of running time. The climactic showdown in the canals of Venice also arrives a little too late and as such, feels less exciting than it could've been. But in the end, Craig and the filmmakers give enough reason for one to overlook such faults. Through their recreation of the legendary role, the cards are mostly played right with a film that wisely goes back to the basics.
10/10
Daniel Craig elevates the series to a whole new level, a level which is above spectacular
The_Amazing_Spy_Rises23 November 2006
2006 has easily been the year of the action movie, with standouts such as Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Mission: Impossible III, X-Men: The Last Stand, Waist Deep, Running Scared, Crank, and Snakes on a Plane. Now, add Casino Royale to the list. Add it to the top of the list as the best action film of the year. Casino Royale is easily the best Bond film of the last few decades, and possibly the best of all 21 of them. Daniel Craig stands out in so many different ways that make him the best actor to portray the legendary character. In a word, Casino Royale is phenomenal.

'Royale' starts with an unbelievably cool introduction to Daniel Craig as James Bond, followed by a spectacular chase scene through the African outback, a construction site, and a national embassy. This is just the prelude to a movie following the spy as he investigates the dealings between terrorists and a banker (Mads Mikkelsen), while constantly upsetting his supervisor, M (Judi Dench), and forming an unorthodox yet beautiful relationship with a strikingly attractive woman, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green).

The best part about the film, obviously, is Daniel Craig's performance as James Bond. It is a treat and a half to study this actor as he transforms the character into something we haven't seen says the Connery days. Craig makes Bond a human being, comparable to how Christian Bale did the same for Batman last year. 'Royale' explores how all the constant killing and disregard for morality affects Bond as a person. Bond is finally shown in a true light, as flawed and rebellious, while keeping him the witty, intelligent, and ultra cool superspy he is. Craig's nonverbal acting is phenomenal. Some of the best moments of the film are when Craig and Mads Mikkelsen are staring straight at each other, attempting to read the other as they play the biggest poker game of their lives. Daniel Craig's performance is simply stunning, realistic, and captivating. Mads Mikkelsen as the villain of the film, Le Chiffre, is very well casted. Mikkelsen makes a fine villain indeed, despite the fact that it can be difficult to understand him at times. Eva Green's Vesper Lind is a great character. You'll grow on her more than you will on any other Bond girl. Her chemistry with Daniel Craig helps create a heart wrenching connection between the characters. Judi Dench as M is, well, you know. Once again, Dench is just cool as hell, whether it be when she's telling Bond off, counseling him, or commanding him. Also in the film is veteran actor Jeffrey Wright as the recurring Bond character Felix Leiter, and Wright is great despite not having a lot of screen time. He is really a great actor to watch, and his performance in this film is a great example of that.

The action of Casino Royale is simply fantastic. While the traditional Bond gadgets are toned down (it was getting to be a bit much), the incredible realism of the scenes more than makes up for this. The opening scene of the film is extraordinarily shot and performed. Director Martin Campbell does his job to near perfection, providing us with delicious action, beautiful shots and sets, and gets extraordinary acting performances out of Daniel Craig, Mads Mikkelsen, and Eva Green. All in all, Casino Royale is the top action film of 2006, one of the best Bond films, and one of the most entertaining films around. Though long at 144 minutes, the film rises above that with an involving and intricate story. I recommend Casino Royale to anyone above age 12, due to the sexual content and complexity of the film.

10/10 --spy
8/10
Best Bond Movie Ever
RogueVirus2419 May 2021
Okay, this has to be the best Bond movie, the story was good and all but the twists and every interaction between characters were really really good, I was just hoping Bond would have been done with his all but I was also secretly hoping for it to go bad so that I can see more of Daniel Craig as bond!... In and all the movie was great and Mads Mikkelsen, as usual, has done an excellent job and he is soo much underrated these days damn that man!!!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Debut Of Worst Bond Ever
FilmMan479 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Starting Daniel Craig this James bond 007 Unnessesarry Reboot Casino Royale 2006 Directed by Martin Campbell the same director who directed Goldeneye 1995 which was a big hit but Casino Royale 2006 lacks all the things from the start. the story is nice but this guy Daniel Craig cant act at all how he is considered an actor just because hes a rich guy thats it. and Eva green did better then Daniel Craig at acting.the story goes as James bond goes to stop a man named Le Chiffre who's plans is to fund terrorists money for terrorism & if bond can stop him he can only stop him by winning a game of poker yes the poker in Montenegro,s biggest casino The Casino Royale. Craig not only lack all points that what it takes to be 007 he just kills random people like die hard style movies.plus the guy has no class in style ..Daniel Craig copies Sean Connery and timothy Dalton they were fantastic bonds in their Era.& no he cannot touch Pierce Brosnan because Brosnan is Golden bond he holds the class & signature of bond and he proved it in his era from Goldeneye till die another day. .the plot gets stretch for no reason it was all about money,who wins looses and more enemies comes for bond. i tried my very best to enjoy this but i could not its not entertaining at all i felt something was missing & i don't understand why this became a huge hit.people waste so much money on useless movies. by the way Daniel Craig is not bond at all he looks like a henchmen .in the climax he shoots his way through he could have sneak behind bad guys.the writer tried to show that bond is the hulk with big muscles & can kill anyone ?? i are you serious this is not a James bond movie at all it look like a playboy film or other overrated movie. overall i would say that this reboot of the franchise destroyed bond legacy .many people love it but not true bond lovers like me accept this.

my rating is 1/10 worst movie and worst James bond ever
2/10
This Ain't Bond, More Like New Coke
doug171712 July 2009
2 out of 10. A stupid film with bad acting and horrible effects that have nothing to do with any past Bond films. Totally forgettable random effects and no story line. The film opens with a chase scene that would have done Spiderman proud, replete with exploding gas tanks, and out of control bulldozers and skyscraper fist fights. It was a cartoon, not an action film. This "Bond" kills innocent bystanders. We see Bond's first kill - a badly choreographed wrestling match in a filthy men's washroom where he tried to drown the bad guy in a fetid sink. The opening credits are cartoons with bad graphics of "Bond" killing bad guys with card symbols. The song is forgettable and poor and there are no Bond girls. Dame Judy Dench is the new M who is just a rough pig who swears incessantly and walks fast. Whatever this is, it ain't James Bond. No style, no panache, no irony. It's like a porno, straight action and no story. Unwatchable and a huge disappointment. 2 out of 10.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not a traditional Bond film.
Rucker1 May 2007
I've seen a few self-proclaimed Bond lovers who think this is one of their favorites -- that seems so strange to me since this didn't feel like much of a Bond film at all. No crazy gadgets, no fun flirting with everyone, not much dodging of close calls, just a regular good guy bad guy movie without much of a good guy to get behind or much of a bad guy to hate, I was disappointed. The highlight for me was the chase seen in the beginning, and it was downhill from there.

Bond committing himself to love a single girl forever? That was ridiculous and it should lose the 'Bond' title for that alone! Some nice scenery is about all it had going for it. Well, at least I tried, several people I know really liked it.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Casino Royale": An Obituary for The James Bond Film Franchise
star-blazer11 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
80 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ever notice how the screenplays, casting, and creative direction of the 007 films produced after "Goldeneye" seem to get worse and worse in terms of art and entertainment values? With "Casino Royale," the franchise hits rock bottom. "Casino Royale" is, objectively, and to date, the worst James Bond film in the history of the 007 film franchise. Why?

1) Story: Based, more or less, on Ian Fleming's original novel, this unskillful adaptation/update is communicated with a disdain for clarity. The audience is fed too little information, too late (or not at all)—about both character motivations as well as the stakes involved in various action sequences—to remain emotionally engaged and genuinely interested in what's going on.

2) Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal

• Daniel Craig (Bond). Craig's characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. At one point in the script, Craig's Bond responds to a question with "Do I look like I give a damn?" The answer in "Casino Royale" is overwhelmingly NO. Why on earth, then, should the audience care about him? At another point, he tells Vesper "I have no idea what an honest job is." Is this a credible (or creditable) moral statement to hear from a top-level government secret agent? Craig's monotonously stoic performance is by no means compensated for by his (atrocious) line readings: he articulates rarely, mumbles often. As a result of Craig's hollow Bond interpretation, what should have been the film's ultimate impact moment—007's "Bond, James Bond" confrontation with villainous Mr. White—is surprisingly anti-climactic, prompting a shrug rather than a cheer from this reviewer.

• Eva Green ("Bond Girl," Vesper Lynd). Green's Vesper characterization comes across unwittingly as awkward, unsophisticated. Green looks and acts like a teenager playing at "grown-up." What's missing is the mature presence/feminine poise that typifies the best Bond Girl actresses (e.g. Ursula Andress, Honor Blackman, Diana Rigg, Barbara Bach, Maud Adams, Izabella Scorupco, et al). A self-confessed "complicated woman," Green's Vesper remains maddeningly inscrutable to the end, and her romance with Craig's Bond is ineptly developed and unconvincingly consummated.

• Judi Dench. Her "M" is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench.

• Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre). In Ian Fleming's novel, Le Chiffre is skillfully characterized as an odd, sinister presence. On screen, Mikkelsen's version of Le Chiffre is unimpressive—an effete villain with a blood-weepy eye, but without the twisted charisma that typifies the best Bond screen adversaries (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Mr. Big, Max Zorin, Janus, et al).

3) Script/dialogue. Both in content and tone, the screenplay—like the novel—overwhelmingly projects malevolence: the power of evil; the stress on the tragic and traumatic; all events taking place in a world where no one can or ought to be trusted. And notice how the script flagrantly undercuts James Bond, the ultimate fictional egoist, with the inclusion of damning "anti-ego" lines thrown at him by M and Vesper. The dialogue is cynical, tasteless, and witless.

4) Original Music: Chris Cornell's unmemorable opening-credits theme song—"You Know My Name"—lacks color, drama, and excitement. David Arnold's surprisingly unremarkable score sounds melodramatic and overly derivative, like a cheap John Barry knock off.

5) Producer infamy/creative bankruptcy: Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the film's "legendary" producers, amazingly lack the vision and ingenuity to advance Bond's personal/professional timeline on the screen. Instead, they bring 007 back to the beginning of his secret service career--in his most unflattering incarnation yet. Out go Bond's trademark charm and conviction. The new Bond is an uninteresting, expressionless, muscle-bound nihilist and a disgustingly vulnerable "hero." The producers deliberately emphasize Bond's vulnerability by subjecting him, incredibly, to cardiac arrest(!) as well as a horrific trial of torture (this latter was a rotten, graphic part of Fleming's original novel). Putting obstacles in a purposeful screen hero's path makes for good drama; but these shocking "Casino-Royale" examples are an extremely sick way to challenge a hero and are certainly artistically unworthy of depiction on screen.

Considering all these points, it is clear that "Casino Royale" is neither value-driven art nor uplifting entertainment. The proof is in the picture.

Yet "Casino Royale" is the highest-grossing Bond film to date. But consider:

1. This fact merely indicates the degree of public curiosity about or interest in (a new) James Bond and owes virtually everything to the franchise's longstanding cinematic appeal and reputation (a legacy earned by better films with more inspired creative contributions).

2. This fact confirms nothing about public satisfaction with or approval of this latest installment.

3. High box-office numbers neither reflect nor establish this film's objective merit as art or entertainment.

4. Positive user ratings for this movie on IMDb neither reflect nor establish this film's objective merit as art or entertainment.
4/10
Bloated brainless "Cellphone Royale"
rich-10619 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I guess I'm in the minority. This seemed just another brainless, explosion-riddled, quick cut, cartoonish, plot-holed action picture featuring cellphones. It couldn't go 5 minutes without a cellphone scene. Good thing they has coverage and no dropped calls! The plot and character actions are senseless. No Q, no new gadgets. People survive massive explosions, car crashes, heart attacks, automatic weapon fire, long falls with only a few scratches. The Bond actor was good but not at all true to the Bond debonair image. The torture scene was both repulsive and silly.

Funniest thing was that during the picture I kept grabbing my cellphone by instinct. Then I noticed my cellphone gone when I started leaving the theater. I finally found it under a seat with a message saying "u got robbed"! 4/10
1/10
boring gay flick
heng-55 July 2007
While watching this movie, I couldn't stop wondering why there were so many scenes where Bond showed skin, but little to none for female characters. Was this really a Bond film or a gay film? The torturing scene (where Bond got beaten in the nuts by a rope) was in bad taste and just another excuse to show naked Bond.

As an action movie, this one is just way too boring. I almost fell asleep. The main character, James Bond, had little humor and facial expressions, and speak in monotone. The actions, which there were only a few scenes, were just too generic. The plot was also very weak and there was no climax. The casino / poker part was just terrible. The villain was actually trying to earn honest living through poker play without cheating? What a bad concept to start with. The main villain died poof just like that and it was not even by Bond. Even worse, the villain died in the middle of the film. The ending was just too long and had no actions (is this an action flick?, not to mention a Bond flick?)
19 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Destroyer of Formulas
agkato20 November 2006
I've watched all the James Bond flicks from Connery to Brosnan and if there's one characteristic of all of them, it's formula. From the opening credits to the tech wizardry to the beautiful women to the action sequences, they all have to be there. Unlike other films where formulas are shunned, the Bond films thrive on formulas; which is why people keep coming back for more.

I had a feeling that the formulas that made all the other Bond films work had to be changed in order to justify the selection of Daniel Craig as a "different" Bond, which really doesn't make sense because you don't fix a franchise that ain't broke.

For instance, the gratuitous violence (for a Bond film) just can't be justified. Yes, the other Bonds killed people, but they managed to do it smoothly. There was no need for James Bond to get his suit wrinkled and stained and his hair all out of place in order to kill. It was unrealistic, but who said Bond was real? People loved Bond that way, and it worked.

True, the film had some entertainment value, but I felt that it was too long. The action scenes were just too repetitive. The gambling scenes overly stretched. I think that it would have been better with maybe 30% of the film left on the cutting room floor. In fact, my wife even slept midway through one of the action sequences.

As to the new Bond, he just seems, well, out of place. Again, I suppose the reason is really simple: Craig is not formulaic. He's not as smooth as the Bonds of the past. I don't even get why he mumbles his words. If the mumbling is intended, it absolutely doesn't work. I thought that Bond was an orphan, raised by the powers that be to be both a lethal killer and well-skilled in social graces.

All in all, I would say that this Bond doesn't work because it tries too bloody hard to work. It's the same as a golf swing. You change the mechanics of your backswing and you realize that you change the rest of your swing as well just to compensate.

Casino Royale is simply just a double bogey in my book.
10/10
Revamped 007 plays a winning hand
pyrocitor1 December 2006
Come 2002, when the world's favourite martini-sipping British secret agent was found driving an invisible car and racing to defeat a madman attempting to fry Korea with a giant magnifying glass, it had become clear that the immortalized Bond, James Bond had strayed a bit from the mark. Fortunately, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson had a ready solution to save their beloved franchise from going belly up – take the Batman Begins route, ditch the franchise and start from the beginning once again by showing exactly how Bond earned his double-oh stripes, and morphed into the suave killing machine we all know and love.

The rest, as they say, is history, with the addition of director Martin Campbell, veteran of the Zorro movies, who performed a similar revival of the Bond character with 1995's superb Goldeneye. Campbell shows a similar flair for bringing 007 to life here, as Casino Royale, adapted from author Ian Fleming's first novel proves to be one of the most powerful and intense Bond movies to date, allowing us as an audience to finally get behind Bond's skin a bit, and learn what drives him, why he is who he is. But don't be fooled into thinking this new Bond is strictly a character piece – Campbell shows no restraint in instilling the film with enough action to keep even the most sated Bond fans more than satisfied. Despite this, Campbell manages to make the title game of poker, where Bond must triumph to bankrupt a fleeing arms dealer, almost as tense and suspenseful as any action sequence; where the film might have lagged terribly is instead a high point.

When re-igniting a franchise as iconic as 007, the casting of a suitable Bond was essential. Understandably, star Daniel Craig had more than a bit of pressure bestowed upon him, and more than a few naysayers. Fortunately, all those who knocked Craig as Bond are likely choking on their martinis at this very moment, as Craig shows the ideal mix of suave charisma and an intense dangerous streak, proving to be the most faithful on-screen adaptation of Fleming's beloved character. But be warned – while he still is without a doubt still Bond, James Bond, this Bond has an edge unseen since the Connery era. In the slick black and white pre-credits sequence, Bond describes his first kill, shown in flashback with Bond attempting to dispatch his target in a bathroom by fist, feet, mirror, sink and water. When asked how his target died, Craig simply deadpans "Not well", a throwback to the dark, edgy one-liners which established the Bond spirit in the first place. This intense yet classy sequence sets the tone beautifully for the rest of the movie – Bond is back, but the gadget bloated days of invisible cars and satellites are gone – this Bond is down, dirty and dangerous.

While the film without a doubt belongs to Craig, he is aptly backed by a superb supporting cast. Eva Green's Vesper Lynd proves to be one of the most interesting and well developed women ever seen in Bond's life, and Green brings a distinct edge, yet affability to her essential character. Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen makes a more than suitable villain as arms dealer Le Chiffre. Mikkelsen shows he doesn't need plans to take over the world to be one of the most menacing foes seen in years. Watch for a particularly disturbing torture scene, bringing a deadly streak to a series usually so full of fantasy escapes. Character actor Jeffrey Wright makes a welcome appearance as Bond's American counterpart, Felix Leiter, and Dame Judi Dench produces what is without question her strongest performance as MI6 head M. Dench bestows M with a hard as nails front (her "God I miss the Cold War" line is one of the most memorable moments of the film) yet with a deeply concealed compassionate streak. Dench brings out every potential subtlety to her character in a masterfully layered and highly enjoyable performance.

All in all, Casino Royale should prove enough to sate the needs of any 007 enthusiast, while also showing something new, sure to connect with any who may have felt the Bond series had strayed too far off track into the realm of fantasy. Director Martin Campbell and star Daniel Craig have brought both the character and franchise back to life in a fashion better than anyone could have predicted. Bond is back, and better than ever – don't pass this one by.

-10/10
9/10
wow...
hamlet-169 December 2006
It has been a while since I saw a Bond at the movies...or more correctly could be bothered going to see a Bond at the movies but the new Bond may be Blond but he sure packs a punch!

Daniel Craig is a fine actor and it shows. His moments with Dame Judy Dench are wonderful and for once the characters (even the baddies) are more interesting than the gadgets!

I thoroughly enjoyed Casino Royale. As did the packed cinema audience I saw it with.

It has been a while since I sat in a full cinema...says something about the drawing power of Bond ...and Mr Craig!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
a passable James Bond
antoniotierno10 January 2007
Casino Royale is a good surprise for its having, in addition to spectacular action scenes, a solid plot. Craig has intensity and charisma not matching Sean Connery's standards and not even getting close to them but that are quite surprising. The story too, after the last James Bond touched terrible levels of stupidity and looked like a big ad, delivers what fans of this genre expect, twists, explosions, beautiful women and cars. Some sequences leave the viewer breathless, in spite of the obvious implausibility, plus the explosive finale leaves nothing really resolved; we'll see again Daniel Craing, in my opinion much more believable than Pierce Brosnan.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
CASINO ROYALE (Martin Campbell, 2006) ***1/2
Bunuel19762 January 2007
Against every conceivable odds, the 21st James Bond adventure is one of his best: the highly unpopular choice of leading man (with die-hard fans of the series) paid off in spades as blonde Daniel Craig - who had previously impressed more for his restrained acting than his animal magnetism in both ROAD TO PERDITION (2002) and MUNICH (2005) - lends the character a determination, temerity and, most importantly perhaps, vulnerability missing since the earlier Sean Connery incarnations. The fact that he was faced with the burden of playing one of the screen's most iconic characters and encountering such overwhelming opposition at first, seems to have merely aided in making Craig's characterization of James Bond as, ironically, more believable than perhaps ever before.

This is not to say that the spectacular stunts and action sequences - not to mention Bond's enviable way with a witty line or prowess in the bedchamber - have been jettisoned or diluted in favor of realistic minimalism but, the fact remains that more time than usual is dedicated here to delving into the various characters appearing in the story instead of previous upping-the-ante tactics which necessitated numerous climaxes seeking to upstage not only the ones seen in previous films but even those within the film itself. The relationship between Bond and his partner Vesper Lynd (the luscious Eva Green) is one of the most emotional and satisfying in the entire series and, despite my initial misgivings prior to watching the film, Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is a terrific opponent with a subtly effective make-up to go with his intense performance. The supporting cast is also worth mentioning: apart from Judi Dench (who is by now filling in impeccably for the formidable Bernard Lee) as M, we have Jeffrey Wright's bemused Felix Leiter and Giancarlo Giannini's reptilian Mathis, a welcome ally to Bond as he steps into the spider's lair that is the Casino of the title but, as usual with these spy sagas, loyalties - to say nothing of love - cannot be taken at face value.

At 144 minutes, this is also the longest James Bond vehicle so far but as I mentioned earlier, CASINO ROYALE is easily the best of the series in 25 years (at the very least). Frankly, I've only been able to take Roger Moore's overtly tongue-in-cheek James Bond persona in small doses, have had little use for Timothy Dalton's glumness and only been wholly satisfied with Pierce Brosnan's take in TOMORROW NEVER DIES (1997). It is, therefore, very refreshing to see, for once, a James Bond film whose plot is not only exciting but, free as it is of the ingenious but distracting gadgets which proliferated in previous outings, also quite absorbing. The black-and-white introduction is a nice touch, the rather harrowing torture sequence is possibly a first for the series and, among the handful of action highlights, the crumbling of a Venetian edifice towards the end is as spectacular as they come.
10/10
"A Bloody Royal Treat From Martin Campbell"
screenwriter-1423 November 2006
CASINO ROYALE blows out all the action, adventure, thriller films before it with a marvelously entertaining and rollicking film that knocks your sox off and keeps you glued to your chair with wonderment in how one man, JAMES BOND, can keep up with all the action and hard work and intrigue. However, in Daniel Craig, this JAMES BOND is the best ever with a "tongue in cheek" manner about him in a body that a West Hollywood man would die for. Can hardly wait until the next Daniel Craig BOND film.

Tremendous locations-although the opening scene in Prague in a skyscraper is one in which I don't recall architecture, nor buildings like that one in that city-but the other sets in Nassau and Venice and along the Italian/Swiss lakes area, were breathtaking and really lent to the story and characters. Judy Dench as M is once again such a great actor and her lines were superb. The whole cast is tremendous.

CASINO ROYALE is written and developed in a very clever way by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade and certain scenes stay in your mind forever. But in the end, this film's strength is in the casting of the incredible Daniel Craig who is an actor that can do everything from LAYER CAKE, to INFAMOUS to the role of James Bond. Bravo to selecting Daniel Craig as the new Bond.
8/10
A very great Bond film
Timbo_Watching14 March 2020
I have to admit, I am not the biggest fan of Bond films. Never have been and never will. But Daniel Craig's first appearance in a Bond film was immediately a strong and powerful one. It was very enjoyable from start to finish because of the good writing, good acting and great directing overall. I definitely recommend watching this film.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Spectacular stunts and scenery, disjointed plot
msieber18 November 2006
This movie had incredible stunts and exotic venues, from seaside villas to magnificent wood-carved rooms. However, the plot unfolded like an I-Ching reading--resembling a loosely related pile of entities which could only be interpreted by filling in the blanks and by having some intuitive luck at figuring out how this bunch of scenes is supposed to be tied together in one movie. With any Bond film, we have to suspend belief as James flings and contorts his way through bombs, skewers, and third-world assassins. However, in previous Bond films, it was clear that the character was a figment of Fleming's imagination, akin to no real-life hero. Not so with this film, that unsuccessfully blended the reality of torture with the an occasional funny moment. Leading the list of disjointed characters is M, which may stand for "mother" or "murder" depending upon the scene in which we catch her. No one is constant in this film except Bond, and even he is unremorsefully guilty of cold acts of violence. This movie should have ended after the sweet pseudo-denouement, which would have spared us from the last roller coaster ride into puzzlement about the final scenes. Perhaps the last part would have sufficed as an alternative ending, but it did not ring with a satisfying note as a full-fledged movie conclusion. A movie of this advertised caliber should not have been edited by minimum-wage teenagers, but that's what it felt like by the end. I prefer my Bond as a character who knows he's playing Bond, not as an attempt to make him a nitty-gritty reality. Put more reality into the plot, so we can follow the action unfettered with confusion.
10/10
007 puts his cards on the table
ShadeGrenade18 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It had long been a source of frustration to 007 admirers that 'Casino Royale', the first Ian Fleming 'James Bond' thriller, lacked the film adaptation it so richly deserved. There was an American television version in the '50's, starring Barry Nelson and Peter Lorre, and the infamous 1967 Peter Sellers/David Niven spoof, but neither did justice to the book. In 2005, Eon Productions acquired the rights, and felt that after the excesses of 'Die Another Day', a rebooting of the 44-year old franchise was in order. It effectively ruled out the popular 52-year old Pierce Brosnan from playing the role again.

Daniel Craig's casting was denounced by a small but vocal minority of fans, and a section of the British tabloid press decided he was wrong for the role before a single frame of the film had been shot. Too short, too blonde, too craggy-faced, were some of the complaints. Yet at the end of 2006, 'Casino Royale' opened to glowing reviews and excellent box office grosses. This was the first Bond film since 'O.H.M.S.S.' in 1969 to adhere closely to its source material, yet at the same time avoid seeming dated. Bond's mission is to beat a villain called 'LeChiffre' at cards at the Casino Royale. LeChiffre has embezzled funds from the terrorist organisation of which he is paymaster, hence he must replace the money quickly or face execution. The book was more character-driven than some of the later entries, set against a Cold War background. Neal Purvis & Robert Wade & Paul Haggis' script is marvellous. Bond even gets to say the famous last line: "The bitch is dead!".

Some were miffed at the jettisoning of old favourites such as 'Q' and 'Miss Moneypenny', as well as what they perceived to be a curt dismissal of the series' past. The one carryover from the Brosnan era was Judi Dench's 'M', which contradicted 'Goldeneye' in which Bond and M have not known each other long.

'Royale' is played dead straight, with little humour, none of the extravagance for which Bond is renowned, and an emphasis on violence. Rightly so. Bond is, after all, an assassin. It would not be the first time that 007 was 'toughened' up this way; 'For Your Eyes Only' and 'Licence To Kill' did as much, but not to the same extent as 'Royale'. I was gratified to see the poker game allowed to take its time, and not sped up for the benefit of impatient audiences. Bond's brutal torture at LeChiffre's hands transfers well to the big screen.

At the film's core is Craig's superb performance as 007. He is nothing like his predecessors, but at times evokes Connery, at others the late Richard Harris. He might not be 'tall, dark and handsome' but is completely believable as Bond. The scene where he dons his tuxedo for the first time is memorable, as is Bond having a drug-induced heart attack. I hope Craig sticks around for a long time. Martin Campbell, who launched the Brosnan era in fine style with 'Goldeneye', was brought back to direct, and pulled off the same trick all over again with Craig.

As 'LeChiffre', Mads Mikkelsen is the best 007 villain in literally years, able to project menace simply by using an asthma inhaler! Eva Green makes a beautiful 'Vesper Lynd', and one understands why Bond is prepared to resign to be with her. So while it might not be to everyone's taste, The theme song 'You Know My Name' was written and performed by Chris Cornell. 'Royale' is the most courageous and daring Bond made in many years. No gadgets? Who cares? With our mobile phones and iPods, we are all James Bonds now. It was great to see Craig confounding his critics and earning a BAFTA nomination for 'Best Actor'. Good work, 007!
10/10
Bond at his very best!
mistymountain24 November 2006
Even though this was the most violent Bond film since "Live and Let Die", it did have some romantic scenes between Daniel Craig and Eva Green that were reminiscent of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". I admit I did have to close my eyes during one or two graphically violent sceness. Daniel Craig has a very strong scene presence in the this film. He's young, and of course very handsome, with a sculptured body that most ladies would love and has beautiful blonde hair and very stunning baby blue eyes.He's starting out learning how to be a British Secret Service agent, and his methods for handling the villains are a little bit too messy. It is an updated version of the Ian Fleming classic book that was written in 1953.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"The name is Bond, James Bond" - Daniel Craig certainly earned it - this one literally with balls
ruby_fff19 November 2006
Kudos to the "Casino Royale" 2006 production efforts, they've made this James Bond 21 worth waiting for. The film's prelude segment in b/w has Daniel Craig rather quietly there, yet the instance as trigger demands, 007 is quick without warning or a blink. He may not be as suave looking as the previous Bond's - his is rugged yet smooth, tough yet tender - the Daniel Craig way, indeed. The beginning credit roll graphic sequence is marvelously presented along with a song "You Know My Name" (performed by Chris Cornell) - the ingenious mix of bold color patterned shapes with miniature Craig the Bond figure delivering his moves, and animated silhouette motion/action integrated with close up of Craig's face for accents - is a visual entertaining delight.

"The name is Bond, James Bond" - yes, he has earned it, literally with all guts and balls - Daniel Craig will return 007 strong. When you get to hear John Barry's - correction: realized the original Bond theme composer is Monty Norman - popular James Bond theme music finally delivered with Craig uttering the famous line, one can be ecstatic about the whole (yes, 2 hours 24 minutes long) James Bond 21 film experience. Bravo for Monsieur Craig, and everyone involved in the project, with director Martin Campbell ("Mask of Zorro" fame), three screenwriters with Neal Purvis & Robert Wade (together on James Bond 19 and 20) including Paul Haggis ("Crash" 2005 fame), music by David Arnold (whose music sure accompanied and enhanced every segment and action, chase sequences, the tender moments, with very subtle strains of Norman's original James Bond theme selectively instilled). The cast: first and foremost Daniel Craig solidly portraying James Bond, unswerving Mads Mikkelsen as villain number one Le Chiffre, exquisite looking Eva Green convincingly as Vesper Lynd, Judi Dench firmly as M with unsuspecting sensibility. The plot may not be the tightest, yet as James Bond film series go, its storyline and action sequences kept within high suspense quotient. Those who play/understand poker games may very well have a good time at the casino table scenes plentiful. Besides exciting action requisite, this film is quite dramatic with deeper romantic aspects than any previous Bond outings. You might say Casino Royale 2006's Bond is more down-to-earth - a human who errs, hurts, even battered and vulnerable to death.

I remember Craig from his roles in director Roger Michell's two 2004 films: the controversial "The Mother" (body naked already next to matured Anne Reid) and stalking shadowed "Enduring Love" (intensely paired with Samantha Morton, playing opposite Rhys Ifan the single-minded nemesis). There's also "Layer Cake" where Craig portrayed the tough and almost impregnable 'XXXX' in the directorial debut of Matthew Vaughn, producer of Guy Ritchie's crime capers. (All three are 'NFE' not for everyone's taste.)

If you're interested in more behind the scenes production notes on MGM-Columbia Pictures-Eon Productions "Casino Royale" 2006, check on the official 'sonypictures.com' Web site: under "About the film" access "production notes" - which opens a PDF file (51-page) available for download, including the "Vesper Martini" ingredients defined.

P.S. Just checked the U.S. weekend top 10 and noticed "Happy Feet" took Number 1 with "Casino Royale" being Number 2. That should not 'shaken or stirred' Daniel Craig's Bond status - here's wishing sound box office revenue for James Bond 21.
5/10
James Bond Kills...And Kills...And Kills...And Kills...
bigverybadtom16 February 2013
The original James Bond series as created by Ian Fleming feature a spy who lives the high life as he does his spy work, killing a few evildoers and making love to several women in the process. There were some gadgets, though not necessarily flashy ones, and Bond wasn't always full of wisecracks like he would be in the later movies. The idea might have been that the later movies were too full of wisecracks and fancy gadgets and they were toning it down. But they ended up overdoing it and turning Bond into basically a glorified serial killer.

The older movies did have Bond do killing and blowing up of villains' installations. But in this movie, Bond kills willy-nilly, often without real necessity. On top of that, the scenes at the gambling table and his romance with the (supposed) heroine go on for too long. Bond may be young and inexperienced, but no wisecracks at all? We might as well be watching a "Bourne" movie.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A miserable excuse for a Bond film
polychromeuganda24 November 2006
The last of the Ian Fleming novels to be produced as a film by the Broccoli family Casino Royale is - from the first shaky black and white moments to the end - a breathless and bloody run and gun of no merit. A thug-a-thon wherein the audience roots for 007, in the end, only out of habit.

A series of improbable fight, torture and chase scenes strung together by an incompetent vision totally lacking any glimpse of the essence of the James Bond franchise. Soaked in blood, and stripped of everything that made a James Bond film a much anticipated spectacle.

This film is everything you never went to a Bond flick for. Its DARK, its ANGST RIDDEN, it has NO STYLE OR WIT. It DOESN'T EVEN HAVE AN ARTFUL SET OF OPENING CREDITS. NO GADGETS. NO WITICISMS. Worst of all NONE OF THE BEAUTIFUL WOMEN that always decorated the films. Generally speaking the film makers plainly enjoyed themselves best when they were THUMBING THEIR NOSE AT Everything YOU EXPECTED FROM A BOND FILM.

Up until now James Bond did what was unpleasant but necessary for queen and country - and was uncivil only as much as necessary to secure the lofty heights of western civilization.

This James Bond is precisely the sort of untrustworthy sociopath that would make the sort of willing killer no service would ever trust.

Since this was is the last of the Ian Fleming novels the Brocolli team owned the rights to, they might as well as well have killed Bond at the end of the film - they've probably killed the series.
5/10
It was okay I guess.
MadWatch18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First of all, I really like James Bond movies (hence me going to see this one). This one was ....okay.

I understand that it is supposed to be "newbie" James Bond when he first started as a 00 agent, but there were things about the movie overall. First of all, the movie was too long and too drawn out. There is a scene near the beginning where James chases a bad guy for like 10 minutes! That's a LONG chase scene and unnecessarily so.

Next, this is *supposed* to be a prequel: why did it take place in modern times? I was initially confused about all the modern cars, cellphones and gadgets. Is this supposed to be a prequel to the previous James Bond films?? If so, why did this movie take place in 2006? If Judi Dench played "M" in the Pierce Brosnan movies and she was taking over the previous M, why was she M when he was getting started? What they heck? The plot line is not the "typical" James Bond story (i.e. no powerful villain with a device/plan to threaten/takeover the world. It was a pretty weak story, as a James Bond story. However, this is probably explained by this being a "rookie" James Bond character.

Most of the stunts were good, but frequently were overdone. When there was action it was good. I can see how some parts of the story could confuse people. It just seemed a little odd that most of James' investigation came from cellphone information.

Overall, I give the movie a 5 out of 10. It was a decent action movie, it just wasn't great and it was drawn out to much.
1/10
Worst Bond and film ever
peter010518 November 2006
I can't believe the raving critiques for this film.

This was not only the worst James Bond I ever saw, it was also one of the worst film.

Everybody's over-seriousness, plot less story, gratuitous violence, weak dialogs.

An utter waste of (over-long) time and money. I actually feel cheated and robbed.

It is true that the franchise needed a refresh, but this refresh has definitely gone in the wrong direction.

I am glad to see that at least a very few people in this craze of raving agree with this assessment and that I am not the only one having this opinion.
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Shaken or stirred - can you tell the difference . . .
Chris_Docker16 November 2006
Spy movies owe a lot to James Bond. If not inventing them, he helped make the genre what it is today. So does Casino Royale, adapted from the first of the original novels, breathe new life into spy movies or just give us more of the same?

Before the opening credits, we see a new approach with a gritty, realistic fist fight shot entirely in black and white. Then cut to rain-sodden Uganda where some Large Amounts of Money are changing hands. Cut again to colourful Madagascar where Bond gets involved in a chase while locals bet on a snake-and-raccoon fight. A myriad of visual contrasts; a dizzying pace; and stunts that look like they hurt. It all holds much promise even before the plot enters to make sense of it all.

The big change, of course, is the new Bond. Not only a new actor (Daniel Craig) but a whole new style. Gone is the debonair, slightly camp, 007. Welcome bruised and bashed, a man's man, an intelligent fighting machine. Love interest Vesper later calls him a 'former SAS type'. This is the Bond before qualifying to 00 status, more Marine than manicure.

The original book was set in the Cold War era. Predictably, this has been updated to fighting a terrorist network and people who bankroll them. But the main story in a way is Bond's coming-of-age - how he lets go of his ego and learns not to trust anyone, even the most trustworthy. He prefers women who are married - to keep things simple - but in the lovely Vesper (Eva Green) he meets his match. Not only seductively alluring, she carries as much clout as he does (holding the purse-strings for the Treasury) and challenges him as an intellectual equal. Vesper has no intention of becoming his 'disposable asset'.

Craig seems to do everything right. His personality seems close to the author's original concept, he has worked very hard to live up to the part, and his physique and sexual charisma exceed expectation. Likewise, Eva Green is a great improvement on the barbie-doll types usually inhabiting Bond movies. But they both suffer from a singular flaw: neither exude, for me, any memorable star appeal. While Connery, and to an extent Moore and Brosnan, lit up a stage and became the face you couldn't forget, Craig simply looks like an above-average crime actor. Green works the part and has some reputable lip-trembles, but most of the classic lines abounding in the script are simply recited. Mads Mikkelsen, as the evil Le Chiffre, has the most unforgettable features, yet even he does not achieve the power of, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman in the not dissimilar Mission Impossible III. The film is still worth seeing by fans, or anyone wanting standard entertainment of this kind. The plot is better than average and fairly faithful to the book. Judi Dench is convincing as M (a character she has played many times). We get to see the new Aston Martin DBS (in a special colour, Casino Ice, not available until 2007) alongside the Bond favourite Aston Martin DB5. Ivana Milicevic, who plays Le Chiffre's girlfriend, has stunning outfits by Versace and Roberto Cavalli; and there's an admirable attention to real stunts over CGI. But in terms of fresh life, Casino Royale is a safe $100M investment rather than anything radically new. In a scene near the end, Bond is giving artificial resuscitation - not very well apparently, as the drowning victim's chest doesn't move. The producers seem similarly not to have taken any chances on the well-preserved body of Bond stories other than adding superficial improvements.

Bond is largely a fantasy character, but this attempt at 'realism' made me wonder, does anyone in 2006 really believe the Secret Service are that efficient any more?? After losing at cards, Bond orders a Vodka Martini. "Shaken or stirred?" the bartender asks. Bond replies, "Do I look like a give a damn?" Likewise, a shot of Bond at the box office is usually a pleasant experience, but this film left me past worrying whether it was shaken, stirred or simply made earlier.
1/10
Boyfriend Bond is a Flaming Piece O' Poo
XeniaisGod21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Over-long, boring, MELODRAMATIC (!!!)

Who the hell wants to see James Bond in a gooey love melodrama resembling an episode of The Bold & The Beautiful?

UNBELIEVABLY terrible. I'd sooner see the series end than "rebooted" in this insulting manner.

Save yourself the heartache of losing an old friend - don't see this movie if you haven't been suckered in already. All your hopes will be quashed, at the very latest when Bond tells his girlfriend, "I have no armour left, you've taken it from me."

Steer clear!
1/10
Shite. With Eggs On Top.
PathetiCinema14 February 2009
THIS IS NOT A BOND MOVIE. This is a dull, uninspired thriller starring some blond guy who looks like a builder, not a suave secret agent. Daniel Craig is certainly no Roger Moore. He just can't cut it. He's about a charismatic as a magnet on plastic. What Daniel really needed to encounter in this poor effort was Jaws(Richard Kiel). Imagine the fun the audience could have had! Daniel kicking Jaws in the nuts and Jaws doing a comedy grimace. Daniel could also swing on vines, imitating Tarzan. Or perhaps Daniel could tell a tiger to 'SIT!'. Daniel should have indulged in a more humorous approach and we could have all, maybe , enjoyed this disaster.

Moonraker pisses all over this thing.

One more thing, if it's a prequel to all the previous movies, why in two fux is it set in the modern era?
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Bond franchise finally breaks free from its own rules
Superunknovvn26 November 2006
"Casino Royale" marks a change in the 007-franchise. What we see here is a very different James Bond and that was to be expected since this is the official first chapter in the series (although the chronology is more than messed up with "Casino Royale" taking place after 9/11 whereas a lot of the previous Bond movies mentioned the Cold War et al).

Anyway, let's hope that this trend to break free from previous Bond rules will continue from now on. How much longer could we have taken a smirking, Martini slurping Bond that never shows any feelings at all, never makes mistakes and is basically invulnerable.

A lot has been argued about the decision to cast Daniel Craig as the new Bond. Truth be told, Craig has obviously been miscast. Period. It's not that the man acts badly - how badly would you have to act to screw up James Bond? Come on, let's be real here, this isn't Hamlet -, no, he just doesn't have the right look. Maybe that's another reason why this movie doesn't really feel like a Bond movie and maybe that's a good thing, since this franchise has become really trite since the 80's.

"Casino Royale" is a well made movie with some great action sequences. Some of the Casino scenes are a bit long maybe, because they seem old-fashioned and slow. I'm guessing these are probably leftovers that remained from the original novel, since they don't really fit the rest of the fast moving, modern storyline.

Hey, no one said this movie was immaculate! It does have its lengths but in the end the balance between action scenes and story development was maintained nicely. The only thing I really missed in "Casino Royale" was a bit more irony, the way Roger Moore always brought it across so hilariously, but maybe it's too early for that. After all Bond has just been reborn and is now a completely different beast.
4/10
An average action movie, but not a Bond movie
sanjeetj-118 November 2006
I went to watch the movie with minimal expectations from Daniel Craig as Bond. Earlier while watching the promos, his ordinary looks gave me hard time trying to figure out which one is the bond? It did not turn out to be that bad in the movie. Casino Royal was an average action movie but it had all the wrong elements for a bond movie.

The plot was one of the weakest ever, the bond girl was close to ugly and the bond himself had no charisma, no appeal and looked constipated. Hope this is his first and the last one.

Clooney would have been a perfect choice. But this plot would have made him look bad too. Go and watch this flick without considering it a bond movie and then you may like it.
20 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Daniel Craig Good: Movie: Bad
Loubear30 December 2006
I am a huge James Bond fan and couldn't wait to see Casino Royale. The movie starts off well, has plenty of action, but the action scenes are too far between lulls. I know the name of the movie is Casino Royale, but the poker game scene I think drags on for way to long and tends to bore you as you wait for some more action. Yes this movie is certainly a new style of the them. Not many gadgets and certainly no cheesy lines which is an improvement. But for me the movie could have been much shorter and kept moving instead of giving 5 minutes of action followed by 30 minutes of nothing. The Villains are also fairly ordinary unlike previous movies. Daniel Craig I like as Bond. He is more of a rough edged Bond and I bet he worked out for this role as you will be able too see in a certain scene in the movie. Overall Daniel Craig welcome to Bond, but I hope the next movie is much better.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Royaly Sucked
jlbalb-122 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
30 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I haven't written a review on IMDb since January 7, 2000, that was for "eyes wide shut". This is my second review.

So it takes quite a bit to get me to vent my opinion.

Though there are many bad reviews here about CR (Casino Royale), I feel I must represent the die-hard fans of Sean Connery and his classic films, which are the only reason this franchise has lasted as long as this.

I actually liked Daniel Craig better than pierce brosnan or timothy dalton, maybe even better than roger moore. But I had the greatest problem with the idiotic script.

here come the spoilers!!!!!!

scene one: bad guy goes to his office, he finds Bond there casually sitting in a chair across from his desk, he knows Bond is a secret agent, yet he opens the top drawer in his desk, to get a gun, which he figures Bond would never have checked for before he began relaxing to wait for this bad guy, the bad guy picks up the gun, doesn't notice the clip or any of the bullets are missing, making the gun about half as heavy as it should be, and proceeds to try to shoot Bond with it,

if you buy this scene, this Bond movie is for you, you must also have an IQ of 50.

scene two: Bond is beating the crap out of a "hippie" in a bathroom, this is supposed to introduce us to James Bond "the tough guy", this "hippie" could have gotten his butt kicked by a girl scout.

if you buy this scene, this bond movie is for you, you must also have an IQ of 50.

scene three: the song and beginning credits are almost laughably awful, unfortunately they are just agonizingly awful.

....

scene 33: bond doesn't worry about where $155 milion is.

...

scene 45: bond is defribilating himself in his aston martin, what's next he takes an insulin shot because he was forced to eat a rich eclair by a nemesis who is a chef.

.... this film sucked, Royaly.
4/10
Boring James Boring
galahad5815 March 2007
After multiple generations of James Bond, it is time to put this tired, old, terrible franchise to rest. There was hope that a new Bond would inject life into a franchise that had long worn out it's welcome. Starting with the same boring old animated opening, it looked like more of the same regurgitated garbage from the past. This James Bond movie was poorly designed. There was limited story to try and force more action and killing into the movie. It felt more like a bad video game than a feature film. The story was terrible, the directing was juvenile and the (suprise)ending was too damn predictable. Put a tombstone of James Bond and move on----PLEASE.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Great Start
rebecca-ry14 October 2012
'Casino Royale' is the first James Bond film starring Daniel Craig and it's a fantastic start for him.

The acting is generally good; Craig gives a great performance as 007 despite concerns and he has made this role his own. Judi Dench returns as M and acts very well as expected; she also provides quite a lot of comedy throughout the film. Mads Mikkelsen plays a great antagonistic role here but more screen-time would have been better. Eva Green was a bit of a disappointment; her character worked well but Green spoke to quickly and quietly meaning it was difficult to hear most of her lines except from towards the end where the film is quieter anyway.

The script was well-written but because the beginning and the ending are both so high-octane, action-packed and simply brilliant, the middle of the film felt a bit flat and sometimes ever boring.

Overall, this is a fantastic film which I would recommend to fans of previous Bond films or even action film lovers who have yet to see one. 'Quantum of Solace' was a disappointment so let's hope 'Skyfall' will be as good was 'Casino Royale' if not better!
7/10
Business as usual (which ain't bad)
dr_foreman29 November 2006
I enjoyed "Casino Royale," but I felt a little cheated when I left the theater, because the movie has been falsely advertised as a radical new start for the James Bond franchise. It's not.

I had heard, for example, that "Casino Royale" was going to be more realistic, in the vein of Ian Fleming's novels. Now, I haven't read any of the novels, but I've heard that the prose version of Bond rarely does crazy stuff like, for example, takes on thirteen machine-gun-wielding guys simultaneously - and win. But he does so here, within the first twenty minutes of the movie. He also runs through a wall and hops between girders on a construction site like Spider-Man. So much for realism!

It helps, though, that Daniel Craig is built like a human tank. Unlike most previous Bonds, he's convincing as a tough guy. He's not that charming or even that smooth with the ladies, but that might be because this is supposed to be Bond's first mission and he hasn't developed his teflon coating yet.

Lest I sound like I'm burying the movie, I should mention that I liked the lovely European locations, the cool casino setting, and even the action scenes, which manage to be exciting and easy to follow despite all the rapid editing. I like Texas Hold 'Em poker, too, so it was fun to see Bond trying his hand at it (typically he plays Baccarat, I think, but I never had any idea what that game was about!) Of course, most of the poker hands in this movie are ridiculously strong - "my royal flush beats your full house!" and that kind of rubbish.

On the downside, the film lacks a strong villain (Mads Mikkelsen with a bleeding eye doesn't count), and the romance scenes seem halfhearted at best. The script makes weird and ultimately unnecessary concessions to modern-day feminist sensibilities. Ye olde love interest, Vesper Lynd, spends about forty minutes psychoanalyzing Bond (don't bother, dear, he's a cardboard character) and insulting him before melting to his charms (sort of). I suppose this is "modern" romance for some people; to me, it's just a bore. If we're not gonna see any nudity, can we just get back to the shootouts and the card games, please?

My other minor complaint is the peculiar scene when Bond's... uh... family jewels are abused by the villain. Another odd attempt at "realism," it didn't quite work for me. (Whatever happened to fun, campy torture scenes, like the one featuring Goldfinger's death ray and the immortal line, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!")

As you may or may not have guessed already, I'm not the world's biggest Bond fan - how many movies can one watch about a pompous guy in a tuxedo seducing chicks with suggestive names (boringly), playing cards in exotic casinos and defeating lame super-villains? I think the franchise needs an overhaul to stay interesting, and "Casino Royale" only partially - minimally - fits the bill. It flirts with realism, but doesn't go all the way.

Note to the production team - either push the realism further, or return to your fun camp roots. This movie lies in a somewhat awkward and self-conscious realm between extremes. It's still fun, though.
8/10
The Immortal Mr. Bond
thinker169118 March 2007
Any fan of Ian Flemming who takes a liking to the immortal Mr. Bond, will certainly like the latest film called Casino Royale. From the beginning to end, this film will not disappoint fans of OO7. I was most impressed with the new actor who plays James Bond who in this film is portrayed by Daniel Craig {is it me, or does he resemble a mature Steve McQueen?}. Although, appearing ever-ready to hang up his Berretta, Craig leaves nothing to be desired in the agent's persona with an immortal legacy. In this story, Bond is up against a most sinister and certainly worthy adversary called Le Chiffre, who's aim is to provide an almost limitless bank account with which to supply international terrorism worldwide. In order to establish the world account, he must defeat Bond in among other challenges a multi-million dollar high stakes poker game. To be sure, Bond is ever accompanied by C.I.A. agent Felix Leiter (Jeffery Write) and of course " M " (Judi Dench). Anyone fearing that Bond has lost his physical ability to confront the modern heavy, will be disappointed as Bond adequately displays an abundance of action, drama, and of course his suave debonair self with the leading lady. All in all, a marvelous vehicle to continue the legacy of the most popular Secret Agent of them all. ****
1/10
Nightmare for James Bond
marinehenry18 December 2006
Stop it!!!! I've watched all 20 James Bond Movies. For each one, I have watched more than 20 times. Even there are actors like George Lazenby, it still fits the Bond formula. But this one, Hell, No. No matter what kind storyline we have, we gotta look into the actor who plays Bond. Daniel Craig??? No way! I'd rather have Hugh Jackman, Clive Owan, OR Jason Connery, son of Sean, who also played Ian Flemming in SPYMAKER(1990) and Casablanca Express (1989), Bullet to Beijing (1997). Even Tom Cruise can do better than this Mr. Craig. Now, the storyline. When we talk about James Bond, we do not want a realistic tough guy. We want a legendary suave spy. Girls, Violence, Gadgetry. It gotta follow the certain formula even though we know its not for real. Pre-Title sequence, then the opening, debriefing, Q-Branch, lovely babes, easily turn the girl who works for Bad guy working for Bond. Then the girl is killed. Afterwards, Bond get the job done with style. Thats James Bond Movie. This Casino Royale is just a 2nd Rate action movie, like Dolph's upcoming movie DIAMOND DOG.
41 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig enters in dominating fashion
mOVIemAN5619 November 2006
As another reviewer wrote, Daniel Craig is here to stay! You can always tell how the Bond franchise will do when a new actor enters as Bond. The list for good opening portrayals as Bond was only Connery and Brosnan, that is until Daniel Craig came in for the 21st film of the franchise. Craig blew me away from the beginning.

The film opens with the origins of Bond. How he became a double-O and what his first mission really was. The story starts right after Bond has made his first confirmed kills. Bond is then sent on his next assignment, to stop the blood-weeping Le Chiffre, a banker who funds terrorists, from winning a high stakes card game in Montenegro so that he'll go broke and will have to surrender to MI6. Accoompanying Bond is the HM Treasury agent Vesper Lynd who is to handle money transactions for the high paying card game.

When one looks at the story line, he or she would probably think, what a stupid idea for a film, a card game is the central plot? Come on. It turned out to be one of the best plotted films, from start to finish. The card game, when played, is enthralling and enjoyable. It was one of the best parts of the film seeing Bond use his brain and not his gun. In fact, the film shows us an entirely different side of Bond, a more believable and an easily acceptable side.

What Connery and Brosnan were able to do to the Bond character was give him a personality of sorts. The films they acted in showed his psychological side more than just none stop action. Where Connery and Brosnan left off, Craig picks up. He shows the human side to Bond, the easy going yet determined agent. A man who can be overcome by his job. The film explores a lot with murder and how it affects a person, especially Vesper. THe film also has a lot more darker side to it, the torture scene being one of the darkest moments in a Bond film.

Ion Productions has made a masterful work with Casino Royale. The problems are very minor and I can not reveal them for they may just be me. Martin Campbell proves yet again why he should be directing every Bond film from here on out. He has directed the two best Bond films since Goldfinger, GoldenEye and Casino Royale. Daniel Craig will blow you away with his acting and charisma. You will not want to move when the movie is running. Make sure you go to the bathroom and have your popcorn ready before the movie begins, cause once it starts, you won't leave that seat.

4.5/5 Stars
8/10
Professional Spies Cannot Afford Emotional Involvement
jzappa24 November 2006
I think Daniel Craig is a good James Bond, I must say. Because he's blonde or because he's too stern or because he's too emotional are all ridiculous reasons to knock the new Bond. There's always a reason to knock the new bond. Ever since 1973 when Live and Let Die was released minus Connery, there's always been a reason to knock a new Bond. He's blonde, yes, and very young for someone who's been dodging bullets and killing several people all fighting against him at once since 1962, and who has, every two years on average, been doing so relentlessly ever since. He's very agile, strong, sexual, elusive and lacking in gray hairs for someone who should be Sean Connery's age, so there is no point in discouraging Daniel Craig, who has always been a fine actor, from the Bond throne. As for the stern and emotional nature of Craig's 007, that effect is caused by the direction of Martin Campbell, who directed Brosnan as well in GoldenEye. So, Daniel Craig delivers as 007.

The problem to be concerned about is its inconsistencies as a prequel. Casino Royale is supposed to be James Bond's very first mission. It begins as he gains double-0 status. However, M is still being played by Judi Dench, whose character is introduced in GoldenEye, the seventeenth Bond film. At the very beginning of the series, M was a barrel-chested, round-headed, feisty yet refined Englishman, played by Bernard Lee. Also, the technology, the portrayal of the political crises, even the brief mentioning of 9/11, all date the film as the most recent and brand spanking new you can possibly make it. This is a huge inconsistency to overlook, so I'm sure that it's in perspective somehow, and I perhaps am uninformed, but equipped with a friend of mine who for months before this movie's release was constantly sending me posters, updated trailers, production announcements, etc., I feel like it would've been difficult to miss something.

From the very beginning, Casino Royale is established as a turning point in the Bond series. From now on, we know that the 21st century has completely taken hold of the already very faddish series. The required format for the films is not scrapped, but varied upon. As the film progresses however, you realize that Campbell does not transcend the rest of the series, despite the fact that this is by far the highest point in his own filmography. He and Craig flesh out a Bond that is in his most accurate form. Yes, Connery was the best and Brosnan the second, but James Bond, the way he was initially created, was a dark, mysterious, overconfident, elusive, and guarded rogue, and his weaknesses were the romantic emotions he would learn the hard way to keep in check and the ego that deprives him of the strength to back down or retire from a conflict with humility. Craig hits the nail on the head, and so at times we see a Bond that we simply are not used to seeing. Connery had the darkness, the complicated mystery, the roguish qualities, and yet he was very earthy and coldly suave, sometimes quite mean. Lazenby could've been any other action hero. Moore was all face value; too airily chipper and full of light-hearted English playboy charm, maybe that of a country club regular more than a secret agent. Dalton was the closest to home, but without the charm and suavity. Brosnan was so well-liked as 007 because his portrayal compared so well to Connery's. Craig, perhaps, is better at registering Bond's internal emotion rather than playing it as a cocksure indifference and so we see that rarely recognized true Bond.
3/10
boring, bore, boredom, boring
bogsider21 June 2007
after an hour it just occurred to me that i hadn't the slightest idea what this movie was about nor did i really care to know either so i hadn't been paying attention! Why not? cos' without realizing it i'd been continuously glancing at the remote control and thinking it's either time to turn this off or FFW this .............. - everything here you've seen Jason Statham do before ............. one good scene though - the Aston Martin swerve and roll at high speed - impressive camera views there - can't think of anything else except the spooky drowning at the end ................. just watch the Transporter movies instead if you're looking for some entertainment out of a mindless action movie
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not as bad as Die Another Day or View to a Kill, but still Awful!
jalapenoman19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, as an action movie, it isn't too bad. As an espionage movie, it isn't too bad. As a Bond movie, however, it's (to use the vernacular) bloody awful.

Daniel Craig is not James Bond. He cannot bring off the suave playboy. The film's apologists try to say that this is because they are showing us the development of the character. No, they are just giving us excuses because of the shortcomings of their actor. Daniel Craig belongs in the class of Stallone and Van Damme, two other men who can beat people up but could never be James Bond.

This movie is not as bad as Die Another Day or View to a Kill, the two worst Bond movies ever made. It is, however, less than the Lazenby film.

From the beginning action scene, which has always given us a thrill ride, I knew we were in for a yawner. This action scene is Bond shooting a man in an office and attempting to drown a man in a bathroom. Nothing spectacular or exciting.

The credits, which have always featured silhouettes of often naked women with guns, was instead lousy cut-outs of fighting men and playing card images. It got no better after this.

I will admit that I was not disturbed by the fact that there was little or no of the famous Bond gadgetry (at least John Cleese was not here this time as comic relief!). This did, however, bother my 13 year old son and his buddies.

The general grumble and chatter of the people walking out of the theatre was not positive. There were a lot of "okays" but no "greats" were overheard. The dominant word would have been "fair" or just "ehhh." Proper sentiment for a mediocre film.

Sean Connery has nothing to worry about, the role is still his. Craig, in fact, may be the second of the one movie Bonds.
1/10
fish tanks are more fun
timbomiester25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
33 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow, I can't believe the good reviews this thing is getting. If you watch a fish tank, you'll find it more exciting and unpredictable then Casino Royale. First off, I'm not a James Bond "fan". I've seen all of the movies, and I own about half. So, before I hear, "Well your not a true Bond fan!" let me explain how this movie didn't work. The studio obviously thought that with the huge success of Batman Begins, maybe re-inventing James Bond would blow everyone away. Huge, over-extended, dark action scenes. A new meaner and (not so much leaner) James Bond. And a couple good-guy turns bad-guy scenes. First off, you can't create action scenes to fill in plot time. In Casino, that's exactly what happens. The action scenes are drawn out and pointless. There is a 20 minute foot chase near the beginning of the movie that drags out so long, that you actually get bored watching. It has to have the most predictable and uninteresting plot of all the Bonds I've seen. Yes, even worse then Living Day Lights. And it ends about four times. Return of the King wrapped up quicker. The ONLY good thing I have to say about this mess of a movie. Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. He had all the elements to make 007 a more bad- ass and grittier hero. Hopefully they'll give him a better script next time. He is the only reason why I might give the next Bond movie a chance. Casino Royale really disappointed me to the point where I almost don't care if there is another Bond. Seriously, watch a fish tank instead.
4/10
The verdict is in. Bond is dead, long live James Bond
gerry1598 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I stand alone in this. But Casino Royale sucked! The very first sequence went on waaaay too long even for two superb human specimen. They couldn't have lasted. At first I thought I was watching Terminator 2 what with James Bond running like the metalic robot then just as I thought that I'd seen it all I thought wouldn't it be hilarious if Bond burst through on of these walls and presto a pure imitation of Arnold Shawarzenegger, then finally the absurd tip toeing across the beams high up in the air. I thought, if this is how this movie is going to be I'm in for a looong a bumpy night. And it was. But surprises of surprises Judy Dench summed it all up quite quickly when she said "any thug can do that." How right she was. The Casino scene with the cards only reminded me of a teen flix I once saw called If Looks Could Kill. It was done much better. I have all the James Bond movies including Never Say Never Again and although I bought this travesty it was only to include all! the James Bonds. As noted by most posters this James Bond is most certainly a winner even if the whole movie was an ordeal for me. I wondered if Barbara Broccoli has heard of the Clive Cussler NUMA books it seems that if she really wanted to make tons of money that would be the way to go. Sure, the NUMA books require a hugebudget and top notch production but if I were to invest in a franchise that's what I'd do. Forget SAHARA, a real mistake but remember that the Bond series went through several changes before becoming the most successful series in movie history. For me, well, I have all the James Bonds movies I want and will close the book on the the series. I see where Craig has made a movie outside of his bond role, that would never have happened before. Perhaps it's telling us something. Goodby Bond. It was a great ride.
9/10
Outstanding, riveting, and refreshing
I_Ailurophile12 May 2021
The 2006 debut of Daniel Craig as the new face of James Bond had extraordinary expectations of a long legacy to live up to, if not also high standards. 'Casino Royale' far surpassed them all, and in retrospect still remains one of the very best of all Bond films.

Craig's incarnation of the master spy is written as much more raw and imperfect, distinctly contrasting with the finesse and refinement of his predecessors. This is reflected in the risks Bond takes, and his relationship with M that is notably rather contentious next to the more casually wary representation in past films. Even in dialogue with other characters, Bond demonstrates a brash attitude much less suave than we're used to seeing.

This all makes particular narrative sense given that 'Casino Royale' represents Bond at the beginning of his career as a "00" agent, as seen in the pre-credits sequence. Action scenes are thrilling, and showcase a forcefulness that seems more physically demanding in appearance, if not in actuality. And extreme though some of it may be, at no point is it so over the top as to approach anywhere near the silliness or absurdity we became accustomed to with the films of Roger Moore, or Pierce Brosnan. On a similar note, there is no novel gadgetry on display in this film; Q Branch isn't even mentioned. Any instruments or devices employed throughout the plot, mostly computers or other electronic devices, are close enough to reality that their inclusion is more a necessity than it is a gimmick.

Film-makers made a conscious effort with 'Casino Royale' to return James Bond to the basics, eschewing the excesses that have bogged down so much of the franchise. So, too, is Bond's approach to women noticeably restrained by comparison, as his only targets for romance are someone he uses to get close to an antagonist, and this feature's ever-requisite "Bond girl." Vesper Lynd is portrayed with intelligence and dueling severity and charm by the incomparable Eva Green, an actress whose skill is rivaled only by her beauty. Green is such a fine casting choice for Vesper, matching wits with Bond as they butt heads early on, and breaking hearts with the vulnerability she shows as the plot progresses. The burgeoning romance between the two leads is natural and believable, a rare welcome departure in the series from Bond's usually relentless, awful womanizing.

And emphasizing once more the producers' effort to renew and transform James Bond: for all the action of the film, including the explosive climax, some of the greatest suspense comes with the quiet tension of the card game central to the narrative. Every actor present for these scenes bears such intensity in their countenance, conveying the extreme stakes of the event without any true need for verbal language. Moreover, it's during the game especially that we get to see Mads Mikkelsen embody the stewing malice and brilliance of chief antagonist Le Chiffre. And here, too, we meet Jeffrey Wright, a solid choice to play frequent Bond ally Felix Leiter in the latest Bond films. Between the screenplay and Wright's performance, Leiter is given more personality than he has at any other point in the franchise, even despite limited time on screen.

We're still not done, though, because of course another iconic aspect of James Bond movies is the music. Composer David Arnold's original score is quite good, perfectly complementing the mood of any given scene and at times echoing the chords of the main theme. But as in previous films, it's the theme song that's most notable, and in this case especially: "You know my name," performed by the late great Chris Cornell, is a bombastic, energizing rock song, immediately more sharp and grabbing with its combination of guitar and horn than any other theme song since perhaps Lulu's "The man with the golden gun," 32 years before. The raw vigor of the song meshes neatly with the new version of James Bond we meet in 'Casino Royale, and at least in my mind it's one of the very best theme songs of the series.

It's such a finely, carefully crafted film that its edge hasn't dulled one bit 15 years later. It's so good that there are only a handful of 007 pictures that can truly claim to keep its company. 'Casino Royale' was a much-needed shot in the arm for a series that had grown formulaic and heavily reliant on overdone tropes and self-indulgence. The emergence of a new lead actor, a greater emphasis on realism, and the purposeful effort to sidestep past immoderation revitalized the Bond franchise and primed audiences for more to come. Perhaps more than any of its brethren - with its intent of rejuvenation in mind, I think this is the Bond movie to watch for people who don't like Bond movies.

If that's not a high compliment, I don't know what is.
5/10
The New Bond Is A Washout
djjorgo13 December 2006
The new Bond movie was not the greatest one to be made. It came with very boring times and Bond seemed human for once. Also i would like to say WHAT BOND DOSN'T HAVE GADGETS, you would think even if he just came into being a 00 he still could of gotten them, i mean Bond is just not Bond without them. There was something very surprising in the movie as well, he didn't get the girl, whats with that? I found the bad guy nothing special and he's way of getting info from Bond isn't well the kinda thing i wanted to see. But i do admit there were times in the movie that made me laugh and that were good but i still think they could have done better.

From your Australian Friend djjorgo
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worth watching
atinder15 January 2015
Casino royal

I know the whole series had reboot but I thought the opening scene was OK!

I did not mind the black and white scene but why did they mess around with James Bond theme , did not like that at all

This movie had some decent actions scenes , I did not really like how they portrayed James Bond in This movie.

To me that felt more like a impostor taking over James role, I didn't really care for in any part of the movie, like the pass movies.

The poker games that went on for tens years , those scenes were so dull , I never been so bored, which I thought went on for far to long.

I did not like how story came to end at all but the last scene just felt forced to me

4/10
4/10
Long movie to show us the most idiotic Bond of all
dasa10820 October 2021
From the beginning we see that the Craig stage within the Bond saga is supported by directors with careful aesthetics and editing. The action sequences are called to entertain although everything we see falls outside the range of credibility. We know that there are stunts, cables, and gadgets that make this reboot not honor the Bond that we knew could do everything we saw: Connery and Lazemby. We have a British spy with little sense, reckless and unable to read reality beyond the height of his lower limb. The villain, no matter how much he is represented by a good actor, does not stop giving pity. The script does not provide any kind of facilities for the actors to show themselves off. The actresses are pretty but even here their history shows that MI6 is full of inept and with good reason the UK today is a decaying power. The film is very long, it has 40 minutes to spare, and various action and drama sequences add almost nothing to the whole of the film. As a movie it is bad. The only thing that saves the film is the good eye of the director and the song of the film. The rest is forgettable.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Edgy and Elegant
brent_or7 January 2013
I've recently decided to watch or re-watch all of the James Bond films. I have probably only seen about 25% of them, and none of the Daniel Craig turns until I saw Skyfall in the theater last month. I knew going in that Casino Royale has a high reputation, and I feel that it lives up to it.

This is a sharp, fast-paced film with an elegant aesthetic. Daniel Craig works for me. His stoic physicality and sky-blue eyes give a real edge and seriousness to the role. To me, Pierce Brosnan never had that sort of edge. Eva Green is just luminous, and her part is significant and well-written, not a throwaway gimmick to add cheap sex appeal. The cinematography and settings are beautiful. There are some terrific, relentless action sequences, but also some very studied quiet and casual moments. Just a pinch of humor, as well.

I regard Casino Royale far more highly than Skyfall. The latter is entertaining and has some great moments, but the former is to me just so much better as an overall film. Not just a fun action film, but a work of art. Very nice.
9/10
"I'm Sorry, But That Last Hand Nearly Killed Me."
elevenangrymen9 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You can sum up the entire Bond franchise up in this film. It has a wisecracking main protagonist, many attractive women, a super-spy conspiracy plot, and of course, a deliciously evil villain. Except this film introduces a new element into the age-old mix. Humanity.

The film begins in black and white, as a man enters a building, at night. He enters his office, and sees his safe open. He whips around to see Mr. Bond himself, waiting for him. The man attempts to kill Bond, but Bond is to sly to fall for a trick like that. Bond ends up killing him, and the film begins.

Bond is shown to be cocky, arrogant and a womanizer with a preference, for married woman. So he tells Vesper Lynd, a cold calculating woman, on the train to Casino Royale, in Montenegro. Bond is on his way to play Le Chiffre, at a high stakes game of poker. Le Chiffre is barely hanging on, as Bond foiled a terrorist attempt that cost Le Chiffre millions.

What really makes this film different than every other film in the Bond canon, is the second half. With the opening half containing explosions, bombs, killing and chases, you will be ill prepared if you think the second half will follow suit. No, instead of being treated as a non-stop action movie, Casino Royale instead becomes somewhat of a thriller, a quiet thriller. That's not to say there aren't explosions, chases, or killings. No there is plenty of that. But there is intelligence behind the killings, the chases and the explosions. There is logic.

Part of this must be credited to Martin Campbell. He not only resurrected the dying franchise once, but twice. Credit must also go to Daniel Craig. His Bond actually made me care. It's heartbreaking to watch his transition in those last scenes. Eva Green rounded out the film with the greatest performance ever given by a "Bond Girl." She is sultry in one frame and heartbreaking in the next.

This is my pick for the greatest Bond film, of all time. Daniel Craig is the best Bond, of all time. Eva Green is the best "Bond Girl", of all time. This is not only a great Bond film, but a great film. If you haven't seen any Bond films before, this is the place to start. Believe me, you'll be hooked.
10/10
Best bond film ever made
masonsaul29 September 2021
Casino Royale is the best bond film ever made, a thrilling and intense action thriller that's an exciting and much needed reinvention of the franchise whilst also staying true to it's roots with satisfying callbacks.

Daniel Craig gives a perfect lead performance as a much darker but still extremely charismatic James Bond and has amazing chemistry with Eva Green, who is incredible. Mads Mikkelsen is an incredible villain and Judi Dench is reliably great.

Martin Campbell's direction is fantastic, it's extremely well filmed with some of the best action set pieces in the entire franchise. It's extremely well paced and the music by David Arnold is excellent. The song by Chris Cornell is the best one so far.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
What am I missing?
jcbozman20 November 2006
I don't get it. I was really looking forward to this movie, and I was unbelievably disappointed. I must be really stupid. Besides being massively confused (too many subplots and way too many characters -- who was I meant to despise? -- who really was the villain?), I kept waiting for some resemblance to the 007 I know and love. Maybe it was true to Ian Fleming's intentions, but not to my view of James Bond -- but more importantly, it came nowhere close to my idea of a movie with a solid plot. Again, I must be missing it. The action was great, the vulnerabilities of this James Bond were evident and I honestly liked the persona he created as well as that of M, but it left me with too many questions. What was the point? Maybe I agree with M -- God I miss the Cold War!
36 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
best of the bad bonds
itchywow8 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale was the best of the string of bad Bond films created in the last decade and has to be the last nail in the 007 coffin.

The story was a hodgepodge of plots from different secret agent movies strung together by a single thread of Bond ego. All the cliché elements you would expect were included: Prague, agents, double agents, high adrenalin chase, a beautiful girl, a fast car, the crash, the turn in the plot, the betrayal, the one eyed dude, hacking into databases, the chair of torture in the middle of a desolate, wet, rusted warehouse etc. However it was so clumsily done in this movie that it's hard to tell if the writing was at fault or the director.

There were at least two "aha" moments for Bond (where he puts some clues together) in the movie that made little sense to the audience. The love story was weak and can be described as trying too hard to make the "opposite attracts" element fit into the movie.

The $150m game at the centre of the movie was drawn out and immensely loose in its parallel stories which involved Bond, the girl and his nemesis.

Bond's "hard as nails yet smooth as silk" character was well preserved by actor Daniel Craig whose athleticism set him apart from Pierce Brosnan. Not having a proper Bond girl was a disappointment but the two "almost bond girls" had enough eye candy to make up for that.

No academy award winning performances and I can't see this as being very much talked about for anything else but the fact that an Aston Martin DB9 does not make it to the end of the movie in one piece but of course a car with such a low centre of gravity could not realistically crash the way it did.

I gave it 3 out of 10
1/10
James Bond is officially *DEAD*
MSane3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
28 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
JB below is short for "the James Bond concept". CR below is short for Casono Royal.

JB: Opens with an action scene that is the climax of his previous mission. CR: Opens with James Bond portrayed as a cold-hearted murderer.

JB: Somewhat realistic action sequences. CR: Bad guys runs up wall as if this is a Matrix movie.

JB: James Bond's boss, M, is a man to whom James has respect. CR: James breaks into the home of M and hacks into her computer.

JB: Visits Q's lab to get some new gadgets. CR: No Q. No gadgets.

JB: Bond catches bad guys, killing them in self defense. CR: Bond attaches bombs to bad guys, smiles in a sinister way when they blow up.

JB: Has a story. Has a villain with a "world-domination scheme". CR: Has no story. Has a villain who plays the stock market, and when that fails... plays poker.

JB: Has a gigantic climatic end-scene. CR: Anti-climax #1: Le Chifre gets killed by unknown villain. Anti-climax #2: Bond and Lynd on a romantic boat trip. Anti-climax #3: Lynd dies. Anti-climax #4: Bond shots Mr. White and before we actually understands who White is and his motive etc. the movie ends.

JB: Ends with Bond and his babe together. CR: Babe is already dead, so it ends with Bond, presumably, murdering another guy.

SUMMARY: Daniel Craig essentially make a cameo of his character in "The Road To Perdition". It's not Bond. There's senseless killing, no Bond-babe, no one-liners, no great end-scene, no gadgets, no suspense, no story...

RATING(if this was any action movie): 3/10.

RATING (for being a Bond-movie): 1/10.

I'm sad I actually paid to see this as it might encourage the producers to make another movie like this one.

BOND IS DEAD. I hope they won't make another movie like this and call it Bond.

*** EDIT *** JB: Had a yerning Monneypenny. CR: Has money.

And to all the people complaining that "this IS the REAL Bond! straight from the novels!". Ahem.. this may be the Bond from the novel but it's not the Bond that's been in movies for the past decades. That's the Bond we've expected to see. That's the Bond we want to see.

If they really want another character. Fine. But give it another name. 008 or whatever.
8/10
I am converted
markgorman24 November 2006
Sadly I was brought up during Roger Moore's (long) Bond reign. And consequently I thought Bond sucked. So much so that I've not even been tempted to explore the much lauded Connery franchise. Recent efforts seem to have been desperate attempts to get back on the rails, but have failed to convince me. But this. This is a proper movie. It is just great. Bond in love? Bond vulnerable? Bond nearly dying? Daniel Craig is simply magnificent. I loved his rudeness and hostility (he barely once says please or thank you during the movie) but when he has to be sentimental he is. Funny? Ditto. Sexy? Yip.

Forget comparing this to other Bond movies. Compare this to other movies. It stands up very well.

OK, it is a touch on the long side. But...

Bond is back.

Daniel Craig - if you stay as Bond I'll be there every time.
8/10
Bond Begins – A Royal Treatment
Galina_movie_fan16 January 2007
"Casino Royale" (2006) directed by Martin Campbell is different from the Bond movies I've seen but it is very good. Based on the first novel in the Bond series, it shows James Bond (Daniel Craig) in the beginning of his career. His mission is to destroy a corrupt banker LeChiffre (Mads Mikkelsen} at the poker tables where he never loses and wins a lot of money to supply the various terrorists' organizations. To accomplish this extremely dangerous task, Bond has to rely mostly on himself; there are no fancy gadgets that Q would provide him with. There is no Q either. I think it is the only Bond movie that lets us look rather briefly behind the Super-agent facade to see more human side of Bond. I don't remember any other Bond movie where he would be tortured in the way that made me truly uncomfortable. I also believe that it is the only (or one of very few) movie where Bond fell in love and as the result of that affair, he would never fell in love again. I have only seen Daniel Craig in two movies before "Casino Royale", "The Mother" (2003) and last year's "Munich" but he was memorable in both. As new James Bond, he is fabulous - a marvel to look at, he has unbelievably blue eyes, he is in a great shape (remember, he has to rely only on himself while chasing, fighting, shooting, and killing bad guys) and he delivers a very convincing James Bond, sharp, tough but vulnerable - the Bond for a new millennium.

8.5/10
3/10
Same old, same old ridiculous, childish Bond. Twist: It's also boring.
ebolart3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a terrible film!

It started off nicely, the pre title stuff was pretty hard core and cool (at least for a Bond movie), the action stuff with the Parkour guy was cool as well, but overly long. As soon as the real story started it degenerated into a snooze fest though. There was no suspense at all! The stuff on the Bahamas was just silly. "Here, park my car boy!" That joke is what, 30 years old? When Eddy Murphy did it it was funny, but Bond?! And don't even get me started on the minute long Ford commercial that was there for no reason: "Ah, he's driving a Ford family car. I bet he will have a great day at the beach with his wife and two little kids. Wait, isn't that supposed to be James Bond in there?! What the hell?"

They managed to make the poker game mind numbingly boring, every little detail was explained ad absurd-um ("See, he scratches his head! That's his tell!" well thanks for that information!). There was NO chemistry between Bond and the girl whatsoever, they were just some idiots taking themselves to seriously staring blankly at each other. Wasn't this stuff supposed to be, i don't know, sexy? He falls in love with her right? Nothing of this was on screen, they just tell you: ooh, he loves her. And the shower scene where he sticks her fingers in his mouth for no reason at all? Completely ridiculous. Talking of ridiculous: First he gets poisoned like a total "noob" (okay, it was his first mission, but come on: even without a supposedly top notch secret agent training nobody would be that stupid!) The scene where he has to shock himself back to life and forgets to plug the defibrillator in was just painfully dumb. Then she shocks him back to life and a second later he's a suave player again cracking a stupid one-liner, AFTER HE WAS DEAD! Retarded! Then they abduct the girl, high speed pursuit, yet they find the time to place her in the middle of the road and hide out of sight. Yeah, right, that made sense! And what was the plan anyway? "We'll put her in the road so he runs her over and feels sad?" I can only repeat myself: What. The. Hell. Why didn't they just abduct him? Would have been easier wouldn't it? But then there wouldn't have been a chance to show his car rolling over in slow motion eight times.

The torture scene: If you describe what's happening in that room to any man, he twitches with phantom-pain. Yet the inept director managed to make that scene completely unpainful. I didn't even flinch once. In the end it was just 10 boring minutes of staring at a naked guy! Who watches this stuff and thinks: wow, cool movie?! I don't get it. All the romance stuff in Italy afterwards was just out of another movie. He suddenly turns all emo and soft and quits the secret service (with an email he sends from his SONY VAYO LAPTOP - BUY NOW! An email?! It basically said: "Dear M! I quit! Yours, James Bond" That's how you quit being a top spy? Sending an email to your mom?) Blabla, huge stupid action scene (right, buildings in Venice float on huge air balloons and when they pop, the buildings just sink) the woman he supposedly loved is dead, so he's back to cold hearted killer again. He murders some white haired business man, says his name and the Bond theme kicks in. We are supposed to feel good about this, yeah, he's James Bond Bitch! In reality this is a guy who has nothing left to live for except being a hired killer for the British government. Everything human in him is dead. That's not kick-ass, that's terribly sad! Watch the Bourne Supremacy to see a somewhat similar situation handled infinitely better.

Even though all the critics say "wow, this is a totally new Bond, real acting, real drama, character arks blah" it's still the same bullshit they have been doing for more than 40 (!) years. They took some situations and put an ironic twist on them, but they're still the same scenes as in every other Bond film. There's now 21 of these things, and with one or two exceptions they ALL sucked. How much more of these films does the world need?

Oh and don't even get me started about the title sequence: A 13 year old with down-syndrome, after effects and some default plug ins can make that thing just as good (if not even better). There's card playing in the movie - WE GET IT. At least show some naked girls, but they didn't even manage that!
5/10
Daniel Craig's not James Bond in this movie, he's just a random hit-man
powerfull_jedi27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
That's the first thing that popped into my mind while watching what I consider one of the biggest disappointments of 2006. Like King Kong, I was once again suckered in by the reviews that hailed Peter Jackson's movie as a masterpiece on every aspect but I left thinking I wasted 3 hours of my life for very little. In this adaptation of Ian Flemming's first novel, our hero begins his first major assignment, after getting his double-0 license, which involves him tracking down a terrorist bank holder who invests their money by gambling and using goons for terrorist plots in a way he profits from them. Sounds interesting, but does it work? In theory ,yes, but when you actually see it? No. If the internet outrage of the casting of Daniel Craig as Bond was any indication of the film going wrong, this just confirms it. Daniel Craig while manages to be convincing in the beginning of the movie(where he takes out his two targets), but after a while, that's all he's got: looks,a bit of charm,but nothing else. While making him a more real character seemed like a good idea in theory, but when you actually see it, you get the impression you're watching an interpretation based on an adaptation of the Hit-man video game series from Eidos. Also, the plot of the movie in theory seems good, but when you actually see it, the way the movie goes from Bond catching the low-level bombers to the high-uppers and stopping their plots(the best part of the movie, hands down), to spending the rest of the movie facing off the main villain by playing card games seems terribly misleading if you're expecting an all out bang-for-your-buck action movie, not to mention boring as heck. The ending didn't seem enough to satisfy most of the second half of the film, but it was a nice touch. The opening credits also made me cringe, sure, they make sense in the big picture but they still got some laughs. The Bond girls in this movie also don't have a label on their face that clearly screams "Bond Girl", which is likely one the things that worked on this film considering they wanted a more realistic approach. The main villain, Le Chiffre also gets some respect as an early Bond villain, despite not doing much other then the torture scene. If you're a James Bond fan, you might overlook some of it's flaws, but other espionage fans and moviegoers might have to look elsewhere.
2/10
"Not as bad as it could have been" doesn't mean its good!
nhtahoe26 November 2006
I keep on hearing that this Bond was better than people thought it would be, and maybe so, but that certainly doesn't mean its any good. There were some impressive action sequences, but that only temporarily satisfies while in the end you are left wondering, simply, "why?" I'm not going to include any spoilers, and there are tons of other reviews out there already that do. Basically my point is that "Casino Royale" did not contain any of the intrigue other Bonds did. Bond is very flat and the relationships that develop in the movie are not believable. A few of the scenes are simply sadistic and pointlessly painful to watch. If I wanted to feel grossed out after a movie, I would go watch "Hostel" or "Saw." Unfortunately this film got good ratings so the producers will feel a prerogative to make more like it, but hopefully someday we'll see more than action and pain in a Bond movie again!
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Top notch entertainment but don't expect any realism
bobbobwhite11 December 2006
For proof, the initial chase scene between the "new" Bond(Daniel Craig, a Shakespearian-trained Brit) and the bad guy could only have been accomplished by androids or the like, as no human in the world is in such great condition to be able to do even 10% of what they did. And, neither was hurt or breathing hard when Bond finally got his man after about 15 minutes of full-out running and falling and crashing into hard things, like steel cranes. Way cool, but also way unrealistic as is typical with all previous Bond films. Nothing different there, and all FX were marvelously done and very dramatic, as always.

I really enjoyed the new Bond..ice blue eyes, and rough, tough, buff and more sensitive but also more blue-collar than all previous Bonds. He had none of the snooty, upper-class Brit mannerisms we saw in the previous 007's. Richard Gere said in An Officer and a Gentleman, "I have no place else to go", and this new Bond could have said it too, as he "is" 007 through and through and could be nothing else. His new "humanity" instead of previous Bond imperviousness or insensitivity was refreshing, but it did somewhat shock me to see a real human being with loving feelings wiping out scores of people without a second thought even if they were the baddies. Again, not realistic at all, but tres entertaining. Don't try this at home.

I enjoyed this movie more than all other Bonds except Goldfinger..the storytelling was more or less the same as others and predictable, but Bond was very different this time....and much better. I hope he does many more.
A fine James Bond movie.
TxMike11 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I remember some of the turmoil when it was first announced that Daniel Craig would be the next James Bond. It seems that many fans were up in arms because they didn't think he would be good in the role. Well those apprehensions were sorely misplaced because he does a wonderful job as the latest Bond.

As has been written, this James Bond is a bit "darker" than former Bonds. He doesn't yet have the polish and more often strays from the rules. Here he has to thwart a plan by Le Chiffre to rig the stock market to his advantage and, after he does, also has to prevent Le Chiffre from winning a high stakes poker game where $110Million overall is at stake.

Good old reliable Judi Dench is perfect as M. The movie has a good mix of action and character development. Less reliance of CGI and more reliance on action stunts. In fact, the opening scenes where Bond chases down a wanted man is one of the best chase scenes I have ever viewed.

All in all, a very fine Bond movie.
9/10
Best Bond film in 25 years
OllyBishop15 November 2006
Wow, what can i say? Not since the early days of roger moore has bond been so exciting, fresh and original. Such a good idea of the producers to go back to the source material, albeit with the modern twist. You just have to put all the chronology aside for a while and enjoy pure, gritty bond fun. And Daniel Craig...instantly places himself as the third best bond ever, (Connery, Moore, obviously) with an amazingly realistic understated and human performance. As for the action, two words...Free Running...WOW again. It has everything, a perfect mix of old tradition, and new invention. And if you're as big a fan as i am, when you hear that theme kick in you won't be able to help but well up! Bond is back to his best.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Did NOT enjoy this BOND movie!
j_miller80526 November 2006
It was, at best, a decent action movie. However, this film lacked in almost every other way as far as a Bond movie is concerned. Craig did a fair job as Bond, but is no where even close to being in the same league as Connery, Moore or Brosnan. Not even close.

I sincerely thought it was a mistake not to let Brosnan do a few more movies as he was truly becoming a great Bond. That being said, I tried to be fair and give Craig a chance. I was SADLY DISAPPOINTED.

Starting from opening to finish, this lacked many of the things that make Bond movies unique.

I see that he has already signed for "Bond 22" which is disappointing to me as a fan of 007 movies. I will not spend my hard earned money on any more Bond films until they get someone worth while again. He is as miscast as Timothy Dalton was!!! I am sure he is a fine actor in other areas but he is no BOND. AND I hope they have better writers for the next movie as well! I do not like writing negative things but this movie was not worth the price of admission!!!
8/10
One in the eye for the critics of Daniel Craig - myself included!
BJBatimdb28 November 2006
Okay, so it's a Bond film and there's only so much you can expect from what has become a tired franchise. But Casino Royale gives the whole series a kick in the pants by getting back to the gritty down-and-dirty Bond of Fleming's original books.

Daniel Craig is a revelation. After all the flak he took on the run-up to the release of this movie he must be rolling in I-Told-You-So's. He's sharp, sexy, funny and human, and a wonderful antidote to the foppish, anal Pierce Brosnan.

The plot is minimal, but the action is original, fast and furious (without being gratuitous or boring), Bond is fresh and he and the Bond girl are believable as people of the 21st century. The script is sharp by Bond standards and authentic too.

The movie really gives the feeling that we can expect the whole Bond movie experience to enjoy an upsurge over the next few years, because those of us who'd got bored by the whole tired thing will be going back to the cinema in droves.

Kudos all round!
1/10
Why "Casino Royale" Royaly Sucks
ace_amick20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
54 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm a huge Bond fan (owning all the movies on DVD and a good percentage on VHS as well as having read several of the books) and I just feel that this Bond did not fit the bill. There are several reasons:

1) Daniel Craig was neither suave nor debonair. Nor was he subtle either in humor or in killing. These are all characteristics that Bonds have always had. 2) Also Daniel Craig did not fit the physical specifications of a Bond. Namely he broke the long standing tradition of James Bond being a hairy dude. This is most notably mentioned in "You Only Live Twice." 3) He changes his signature drink… "Martini shaken not stirred" 4) The continuity sucked. a) Sure there is no time-line in Bond but this movie proposes to set one up. It's supposed to be the first and therefore the use of computers, cell phones and modern vehicles really ruined it. I understand the hope to use Craig in more than one movie but this one should have been set in the past while others could be set in present time. b) They say that the Cold War is over however it is quite obviously going on, what I guess now is, later on in the series. c) They use Judi Dench as 'M' when she is said to be the original M's replacement in "Goldeneye" how can she be both the original and the replacement? 5) No "Q" branch 6) No hot girls in the "theme song" sequence/ it looked more like an Apple Mp3 player advertisement.

Craig just isn't that dynamic of an actor and I feel he has trumped even Lazenby as worst Bond. While Craig is still British he doesn't have a very thick accent, something I'd like to have seen, and he acts more like an American Rambo than a British MI6 agent.

I feel like my only recourse in this is that it was released by Sony Pictures rather than MGM. This allows me to pretend it wasn't a real Bond film just like that other mistake "Never Say Never Again."
1/10
"Bordello Royale"
sandy-kopi19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
324 out of 680 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you consider yourself a James Bond fan and yet enjoyed this film, there is a problem.

Just like everyone else, when I first saw that Daniel Craig was to replace Pierce Brosnan in the role, I was a bit confused. His ice cold looks seemed to be quite a stretch from the image we have of James Bond. Maybe "they" know some things I don't about 007, maybe I've been missing something about the character. Plus,the hype around the production was excellent,the rumor was that the filmmakers have decided to be more daring in many aspects. Nothing wrong with that, as a long as you know what you're doing.

But at the very first frame of the film,my original skepticism re-emerged:

The opening scene happens in a sombre black and white cold war setting in which Bond makes no spectacular entrance, chatting with his enemy and finishing the mission with his fists inside a...dirty public restroom. Then Bond spins around, aiming his gun at the camera, taking the classic pose. Right then, I couldn't help myself but noticing the restroom tiles in the background(!) and this blond muscular hunk in the center of the screen suggesting: " I am your NEW James Bond!". "Not yet,gentlemen" did I think.

Still, let's give them a second chance, here comes the long-awaited opening credits. A beautiful animation of paisley patterns and stylized men fighting in slow-motion,turning into flying hearts,spades,clubs and diamonds at each blow. But something is missing: where are the gorgeous nude feminine silhouettes? Where are the girls? Gone !!! Why???!!! At this point, I feared the worst: did the producers decide purposely to get rid of everything we actually loved about James Bond?!

But here comes hope:James Bond chases a man through a building site,climbing on cranes, jumping and falling hard. Great, this might not be a real James Bond flick, but at least, we're in for some good entertainment. Right?

Wrong: The rest of the film is nothing but a long (two and a half hours long!)demonstration on how to annihilate a movie landmark character.

No Monneypenny,no "Q",no "R", and every time "M" (Judi Drench) appears on the screen, the ONLY thing she ever does is begging Bond to stop doing what he's doing and come back to his senses. Yet,all I could hear from her was: "What have you done to James Bond? Who are you, blond man?! Why don't you ever smile? Why don't you ever say anything witty? How come the only gadget you use is a cell phone? How dare you wreck THE 1964 Aston Martin in only 3 minutes? How could you fall in love with such a boring girl? What do you want from us? Bring us back England's most precious hero!"

The other characters barely exist: The villain, named Le Chiffre, is a card player who's task is to finance terrorism by playing poker. Does he cheat ? no. Why? He might be a villain, but will not take his cruelty as far as... cheating! We know he's the villain since his left eye bleeds once in a while and he acts like everything is fine. Who knows,maybe someday,we'll get to see a villain who plays Monopoly with a runny nose. So scary.

Then I thought: "I get it! His damaged eye is in fact a technological wonder that allows him to see the other player's cards thanks to the mysterious blond girl, in the background, who's eye is a camera placed surgically inside her head and feeds Le Chiffre with her own vision! Great!". Was I right ? Of course not, that would be something you'd see in a James Bond film...

But here comes the most sacrilegious scene EVER to come out of a James Bond film:

James Bond (let's keep using this name, for the lack of a better one) is taken prisoner and dragged in a basement, he is entirely stripped from his clothes and attached on a chair without a seat, letting 007's "genitals" dangling from underneath (Yes,you heard right). Le Chiffre proceeds to swing a large heavy rope and hits her majesty's favorite secret agent's nuts over and over. Bond screams in pain but does not reveal the bank account number. What a man. Does he escape? Does he fight back in the most ingenious manner and eliminates his torturer? No, he passes out and wakes up in a hospital.

The torture may have stopped for Bond, but increases for me: Bond finds comfort in the arms of his girlfriend Vesper (yes, girlfriend) who tells him, to rebuild his pride, that even if the only thing left from him was his little finger, she would still love him. To which, the emasculated James Bond replies (watch out, humor coming your way): "That's because you know what I can do with my little finger." Can we please stop talking about mister Bond smashed testicles and go on with this never-ending-going-nowhere-story?! And don't we know that if Bond was ever blown to smithereens, the only thing left from him should precisely be his genitals?

There were other problems with the film of course,such as the boring story, and the fact that the casino (which seemed to be the perfect setting for a James Bond film) turned out to be so poorly exploited.

Giving this film one star might not be fair (do you ever read a review unless it has a 1 or a 10 star rating?),but the main problem goes beyond the bad choices added by the filmmakers throughout the film. The problem is that the film was made with the wrong "spirit" and doesn't take in consideration that, unlike other movies, James Bond belongs more to the public than to its makers, and that this rare fact deserves to be honored.

Don't mess with MY James Bond.
2/10
This is not the Bond I knew all my life long...
herthh3 September 2008
It is bad, really bad. We lost the elegant flavor... The new, so called Bond is not "the classic Bond" anymore. Dialog is unsophisticated, situations are mundane and accompanied by a display of excessive mindless violence and brutality. The story line recalls places and situations which we saw so many times in previous Bond installments, but without ever managing to restore their magic and uniqueness. The former elegant, eloquent, flamboyant, and yet completely unreal spy and super agent is now an ordinary martial art thug with plain language. What a transformation.

Going to a Bond movie was like returning to a special dinner. We would like to find everything in its right place. Identical ...but different. And of course we expect to find all ingredients present and of impeccable quality. The villains are expected to be highly educated, eloquent and flamboyant as well. Our villain here in Casino Royale invested money from an Ugandan warlord in puts, and needed to blow up an aircraft to make his investment win big. Really? And once it failed, a poker game was the "big plan" to get it all back. Yes, a poker game. This was it, this is the entire plot, the level of "sophistication" of a devious plan. Do you think that this is worth a Bond movie? I want my Spectre back. I want to see the game for the domination of the world, with unreal but physically plausible equipment, which none of the gullible governments has. And I want Bond saving us all, as always, but of course differently each time.

Shame on you, Casino. Sean Connery and Roger Moore are still the quintessential Bonds for me. With films starring Timothy Dalton, the entire enterprise began to spiral down, and sadly it has never recovered.
4/10
Gratuitous and graphically violent; less cohesive than previous Bond films.
da_design16 December 2006
The new casting is great, however, the story barely holds itself together, relying on huge leaps of faith. Unpredictable, inexplicable happenstance - not Bond's skill- saves our hero again and again.

The rooftop-leaping chase scene early on is truly spectacular.

More graphic, gratuitous violence and tragedy than I remember from previous Bond films. Special effects (not necessarily missed) are replaced by fist-on-cheek, rubber-to-road action. The only thing less graphic were the love scenes. (mouth on mouth lol!)

I will admit it was at times more emotionally tender, with Bond expressing more emotion towards his female accomplice.

I was expecting some degree of camp humor and suave performance. Not so. Jarring from the violence, less humorous and less tidy a conclusion than previous Bond films. Still, the new Bond has made his entrance with a fresh take on the character, and I look forward to future developments.
3/10
I didn't like that
pg-wickedsick18 April 2007
what?? did I read well?? 7.9?? I mean,where's the criteria? This movie was a joke,every 007 fan is still taking pills because they've watched this!! The others 007s had style,charisma,glamour,the typical "je ne sai quoi" of every James Bond that I've ever seen,even with the Bond girls,he knew how to conquer them...but when you watch Daniel Craig,the concept "WHAM BAM THANK YOU MAM!!" rises to a new level!!! this guy ain't no gentleman,this is not his league,he has no 007 class material!!! With a much more serious analysis, I felt that this movie was completely different of those that I've used to see back in the old 007 days. It lacked of action, a little too predictable and the choice of the actor wasn't the appropriate one,but let's face it,we're in the XXI century and we must evolve in other directions...even with 007, but some things should never change, specially the charisma of the character,he didn't conquered me...This was a weak movie in my opinion,they should return to the old drawing board
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a disappointment!
emailly24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
28 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Say "James Bond" and you picture a suave, sophisticated gentleman who just happens to be an incredible secret agent. The James Bond of earlier movies would never call his leading lady a "bitch" as this Bond does with the woman he claims to love. Beyond the disappointment in the way this Bond is played, is the disappointment with the movie itself. The plot line simply doesn't exist. Characters come and go, and their reason for existence seems to be little more than an excuse for another show of pyrotechnics or gunfire. To some degree you expect that with a Bond movie, but this movie seems mean-spirited, disjointed, and lacking in a basic story line. When the action settles down -- as it did in the poker scene at Casino Royale -- there is no story to keep your interest and you find yourself hoping that the movie will be over soon. The ending makes no sense and serves only as a clumsy excuse to kill off the leading lady. This movie is a waste of time -- start to finish.
4/10
A Bond movie! Where??
AlexandraSantos23 June 2007
Considering the fact that many so called "hardcore 007 fans" are praising this is not only puzzling but somewhat frightening.

I must admit I can't even remotely be called a hardcore 007 fan, but I have enjoyed a few viewings of all Bond movies. The entertainment value, and charisma of some actors (James Bond is Scottish in my opinion and always will be) portraying it are simply brilliant. Throw in the over the top villains and witty humour and we got the spy movie formula that withstood the test of time. Decades of it!

Why completely destroy and try to reinvent a winning formula? After the first thirty minutes of the film it was clear this was no James Bond movie. Where did the witty remarks go? Where did the entertaining action go? As this is meant to be a prequel, how is it even slightly believable that the character "James Bond" here played by an emotionless, expressionless, humourless, heap of muscles played by Daniel Craig could ever become what we all witnessed with the likes of Roger Moore and Sean Connery? Who will be the next Bond? Dolph Lundgren?

As an action/thriller this film could stand on it's own and be called mediocre if not even above average. But slapping the "007" in it is not only an obvious attempt to cash in on the brand, and putting no effort into it, but it also should have put the fans of the series in an uprising.

I don't know whose at fault here for slaughtering the notion of James Bond, the script writers, the director/producers, or the actor. But my guess is, it was a mix of everyone.

Imagine the new Indiana Jones movie being played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, throwing out all the fantasy, and make it about an archaeological dig being examined, the whole movie... That's what happened to this franchise.
7/10
Really? Ever?
markomilovanovic-198711 July 2020
Did anyone of movie creaters ever travelled to the Montenegro?
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Bloody Good Show, Mr. Craig
evanston_dad27 November 2006
The charm of James Bond films have mostly eluded me over the course of my 31 years. In fact, I've only seen one other as far as I can recall ("Octopussy" -- and by the way, how did that movie ever get released with THAT title?) and I remember virtually nothing about it. I don't think I'm missing much. From the isolated moments I've been able to catch on T.V. here and there, Bond movies look pretty awful -- not, mind you, awful in the tongue-and-cheek, isn't-this-fun kind of way, but awful in the I-wonder-what-else-is-on-T.V.-right-now kind of way.

Well, Daniel Craig may make me a Bond convert, at least for the next few films. "Casino Royale" is a blast -- it's an action-packed adrenaline jolt of a movie, full of beautiful people and beautiful locales, and it's a testament to its ability to entertain that I didn't once look at my watch during its 144 minute running time.

Daniel Craig looks like a bulldog, runs like the terminator, and has steely blue eyes that usually match the color of whatever body of water he happens to be standing in front of at the moment. The moment he appears on screen, you get the sense that he's out to quash once and for all all of the naysayers out there who assume that he'll make a lousy Bond. And boy does he. He could take on Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan at the same time with both hands tied behind his back. Sean Connery maybe would give him a run for his money, but I suspect Craig would still pummel him severely. As for his sex appeal, I'll leave that to the ladies to assess, but if my wife's reaction to Craig's entrance half way through the film in a tuxedo is any indication, he's not lacking in that department either.

It's almost laughable how regressive these movies are. Women are treated as nothing more than objects to either seduce or save, and Bond usually refers to the lead female in this as nothing more than "the girl." I bet feminists hate James Bond.

Grade: A-
10/10
Bond as he should be
freemantle_uk15 March 2008
I am a Bond fan and I like it when the films are serious. I liked Sean Connery, Pierce Bronsan and Timothy Dalton when they played Bond, but I didn't like Roger Moore because I felt most of his films were too silly. I was worried when the filmmakers cast Daniel Craig because I didn't know him at the time and I liked the idea of casting Clive Owen as Bond (I still wouldn't mind seeing him in role). However when the reviews came out and especially after seeing the film my worries were rested.

After Die Another Day the Bond franchise needed a reboot. Die Another Day was a poor film, being too silly, having a sci-fi plot and just selling out. At the same time Bond finally had a serious rival in the name of Jason Bourne. Bronsan was also getting too old to be play Bond and a new Bond was needed.

I like Casino Royale because it took a more darker, gritty, realistic approach. This was refreshing and needed. It shows Bond as a human and a more darker character, showing him more colder, like a man who does kill for Queen and Country should. Bond does get into tough fights, and the fights feel genuine. Another factor why the film is more realistic is the bad guy, Le Chiffe, is a man who sets out to make as much money as possible. He is sadistic and cold hearted. He was played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen who gave moviegoers a good performance. Bond also doesn't led evils monologue, and just kills them or fight them, which would be the more real response. Eva Green was also a very good performer. She played Vesper Lynd, the Bond girl. She is portrayed as a strong character, having to make her a super-spy like Bond. She also felt like a very character, and unlike other Bond girls Eva Green career has actually improved after the role and is now an A-lister.

I loved the action in the film as well. Die Another Day used CGI (and poor CGI at that) which shouldn't be used in Bond films unless they is no other option. Martin Campbell took the film back to basics and the action was performed by traditional stunt work. The fight scenes were excellent, and I loved the chase scene in the beginning of the film as just amazing.

I can't wait for Quantum of Solace to come out and hope that it can build on the groundwork Casino Royale laid out.
1/10
Not a Bond movie
danbert825 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
107 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you put a 007 on a movie, it should be a Bond movie, not a generic action flick.

What do YOU think of when you think of Bond? I guarantee it won't be in the movie. Let me give you a summary of what Bond signatures were missing from the film.

1. An exciting, explosion filled intro

Nope, in this movie you could have told me it was Fight Club or Kill Bill and I would have believed you. Some punching in a bathroom, that's about it.

2. Naked silhouettes of women in the opening credits and upbeat music

Try bad CGI rendering of card motifs with a horrible score from someone nobody's ever heard of.

3. Sneaking around

You'd think a spy wouldn't go gun blazing into an embassy, but you'd be wrong. After a chase scene taken straight out of The Matrix, he ends up blatantly walking into the embassy shooting, and not even attempting to kill the cameras. He escapes of course, but ends up in the newspaper (some SECRET agent).

4. A sweet car with an awesome chase scene.

Nope, a Ford Focus. Then when he gets an Aston Martin, he gets up to a high speed goes around one corner, and then flips it a billion times.

5. Gadgets!

Nope, Q didn't even make it into this movie. His gadgets are a cell phone and a defibrillator.

6. A maniacal villain

Nope, just some guy who's bad at manipulating the stock market, and he cries blood, which is kinda wussy.

7. A real game of cards

Baccarat was replaced with Texas Hold 'em, because Hollywood had to try and cash in on every popular trend. However, the poker game is drawn out, has little to do with the plot, and is comically predictable. Who'd have though it'd end with everyone going all in, and each having an even more improbably better hand than the last?

8. Bond chicks

Well there was one hot chick in the movie. She was in the movie for 5 minutes, just long enough for her to explain she is married to a bad guy, but not much else. She was tortured and killed. It's a pity because the Bond girl who Bond falls in love with (if that doesn't kill it, nothing will), is obviously not the kind of action filled girl that a secret agent would go for. More like a nun with a side-boob shot.

9. How about some cool weapons?

Wrong again... 90% of everybody uses a pistol. Of course they have infinite ammo, but doesn't everyone these days? There are maybe 2 or 3 assault rifles in the movie, but Bond doesn't use them. He actually makes most of his kills with his bloody fists.

10. Style

Bond is smooth, a connoisseur, and a ladies man. In this movie, he is a monkey in a suit that has no taste at all.

In the end, it was a 5 out of 10 generic action film. But they put a 007 on it, so I give it a 1, only because a slap for Hollywood isn't an option.
1/10
Did everyone see a different film to me?
richard-71018 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
36 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did everyone who has so far rated this movie smoke some illegal substances before they saw this film? Because otherwise I must throw away my lifelong love of Bond and find another super secret agent to watch. I thought this film was awful! I went to see it with three friends, two of which were Sean Connery fans and one Pierce Brosnan. We listened to the hype and hoped it would be brilliant. We all left the cinema in disgust, we didn't think it could get worse then Die Another Day, but I'm afraid they managed it.

Heres why.

After a decent forty minutes where the film shows some promise with some great action, and despite the worst musical opening ever(someone got paid for the stupid murder by playing card graphics?), the film then goes on for far too long over a boring card game and finishes with an unexciting finale. My main gripes are as follows: James Bond is supposed to be intelligent, not an ape in a tuxedo! Gone is all the cleverness the character represents, the brilliant ways he gets himself out of trouble. No instead you get a mindless thug who might as well have been played by Schwarzeneggar. Bond always gets himself out of trouble, he always has a way, even when he appears helpless he always has something up his sleeve. Thats what bond is. Hes cool, calm, has style, can be ruthless, can be charming, none of which the new bond has I'm afraid. As for the getting himself out of trouble part, no James Bond does not wait for the simpering girl to come along and save his a** nor rely on another villain to intercede with him being tortured to death. No, No, No! James Bond this man is not. Even taking into account this is a prequel you just can't see this main being able to outsmart a paper bag and if all we wanted was a hard man to engage in brutal violence we might just as well have cast Vinne Jones! I could go on forever about this films shortcomings and don't even get me started on 'Money-Penny' but thats my two cents worth, bring back Brosnan if this is the best they can come up with!
9/10
A different James Bond - but wow what a show!
padutchland-123 November 2006
I've been a fan of James Bond movies since the beginning - OK, I'm dating myself. Seeing the new James Bond in previews etc, I wasn't sure I would like it, as he does not resemble the former smooth talking, debonair 007 of the good old days. Don't expect a rehash here of what the movie was about, you will get plenty of recaps in other member commentaries. Right off the bat though, I was surprised to see 007 shoot and kill a man who was not armed, and James knew it. Former James Bonds never took out a bad guy unless he was trying to do in our hero (as unreal as that is in real spy life). The new James Bond is rougher and tougher with no holds barred. OK, you get the idea. Daniel Craig was most believable in the part and the stunt men did a wonderful job, but it looked like Craig also did a lot of hard work himself. Eva Green was perfect for her part as she was both vulnerable and yet matched James quip for quip with her own kind of toughness. Being that beautiful doesn't hurt either. The bad guys and the supporting cast were most outstanding as well. Special effects will wow you. Don't try to compare this with the 1967 Casino Royale. Same title, different movies. Don't try to compare it to other James Bond movies either. Just enjoy each for itself. I hate to give any movie two thumbs up, but that other hand is trying to raise a digit. Go see this one!
1/10
Who needs TV when you got all your favourite ads at the movies
grendelsmom2 January 2007
OK. I get to the cinema at 2.40pm. Only a short wait till the movie starts at 2.45, or so I think. For the next 20 minutes I'm treated to a rich assortment of trailers for films I would never want to see. This has whetted my appetite for the 15 minutes of advertisements that follow. It doesn't get much better than this.

Finally, the lights in the theatre dim and the movie starts. Thank God, no more bleeding ads! Then James Bond whips out his fancy new Sony Ericsson mobile to talk to his mate. The terrorist has an old ugly looking Nokia. Bond hacks into the secret services database using a spiffy looking Sony Vaio notebook. He manages to nick the mobile phone of one the baddies, another Sony Ericsson shown in loving closeup. The girl at the casino asks Bond what drink he'd like - not a vodka martini but some concoction with gin in it. And not just any old crap like Plymouth or Bombay Sapphire, but Gordons. And what watch does 007 says he wears - definitely not Rolex, but Omega. Seamless. For the next Bond film, I think Casio should throw a couple of wads of cash at the producers so that calculator watches become cool again.

What's going on! Why are we allowing this sort of blatant advertising to be regularly shoved in our faces in a movie we've paid good money to see! 007 is a licence to print money as well as a licence to kill. Any half decent Bond film will make an obscene amount of money in ticket sales, DVD releases, PS2 games etc without needing to resort to such over the top product placement. It is pure greed on the part of the studios that motivates them to do this and pure apathy on the part of the audience that lets them get away with it. Get mad people! Or else you might soon be enjoying commercial breaks in the middle of your next movie at the cinema.
5/10
Doesn't keep up to a Bond Movie's image
ankurbalar23 November 2006
Being a big fan of James Bond Series I was their for the First day First Show. The first half specially the stunt sequence in the starting was superb. Their was amazing energy flowing in the scenes. The story was turning out to be fine but it could not keep up to the image of the Bond movies where generally it is Bond saving the world, The actors have really performed well. After intermission the movie started to slow down and at a certain time the speed of th movie was dwindled to trifle. I believe thats not generally the flow of a Bond movie. I hope the sequel will put in more action and a feeling of rush. I know I am speaking against a lot of people but thats strictly a personal opinion I wanted to bring into notice of all.

Regards Anx
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My favourite James Bond movie!
rorymacveigh29 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film takes everything a good spy thriller needs, and puts it all in, Shaken, but not Stirred. It's smooth, it's cool, it's unbelievably subtle, there's no Overly Complicated Killing Scenes, no long winded sex scenes, no ten a penny girls and most importantly, it has a story that stands up on it's own!

The film begins in Cold War Czechoslovakia, where Bond is sent to kill a British Agent who has been selling secrets to the Soviets. This is before Bond has been issued a 00X rank and has to have at least two kills under his belt before he can be given such a prestigious but dangerous rank. In previous flashbacks, Bond is seen killing the agent's contact in a bathroom, his first kill. Bond then achieves his rank by nonchalantly dispatching the agent. What follows is what has to be the best opening to a movie I have ever seen in my entire life. A fast paced thrill ride of flying cards, henchmen being killed by clubs, Kings, Queens, Jacks and Aces, and not a single one of those monotonous dancing girls in sight! (This is where I knew this film was going to be a good-en!)

We then move to Uganda, where a Freedom Fighter is setting up an account with a financier names Le Chiffre, who works through an organisation known as SOLICE to fund terrorist groups throughout the globe. Le Chiffre is a subtle but calculative character, sly in motive, but sinister in appearance, and one of my favourite Bond villains. We then move to Madagascar, where Bond and a fellow agent are tracking a bomb-maker. After his assistant is spotted, Bond proceeds the chase the Bombmaker through a Construction Site and into the Namibian Embassy. Violating all international codes, Bond enters the building and takes the man hostage before dispatching him and escaping. In his backpack, Bond finds a set of explosives and a text message on his phone with the word 'Elipsis' written. Meanwhile, News spreads across the World about Bond's rash invasion of the Embassy, and M and Bond have a heart to heart conversation about how she is ready to feed him to the press if he doesn't stop his rash behaviour. But this is not before Bond has tracked the origin of the text to a location in the Bahamas.

Continuing his mission, Bond arrives at a Seaside hotel and after creating a rather humorous distraction, scans the security tapes to find that the person who made the text was a Greek man named Alex Dimitrios, a known Arms Dealer and hirer of mercenaries. Bond introduces himself to Dimitrios in a game of Poker, in which Bond emasculates him by taking a large portion of his money and of course, his Aston Martin DB5. After seducing his girlfriend, Bond is able to learn that Dimitrios is flying to Miami. Bond follows him to an art museum where he sees Dimitrios place a baggage tab on a Poker chip. After a subtle attempt to murder Bond, the Secret Agent gets the upper hand and quietly kills Dimitrios. Upon returning to the Poker chip, he finds it missing and after using Dimitrios' mobile phone to track the agent, Bond follows him back to the airport. Disguised as an Airport Security Officer, the agent sets off the alarm and steals a fuel truck in order to crash it into a Skyfleet Prototype Jetliner. This will send Market's Tumbling and since Le Chiffre has bet against the markets, it will make him a rich man and allow him to fund his terrorist groups. Bond is hot on his tail as the pair have a long fight in the cab of the tanker truck. The agent sets a bomb underneath the cab and jumps out. Bond is able to stop the truck with inches to spare and is arrested by Police. The smug looking agent sets off the bomb but realises that Bond has attached it to his belt, blowing him up.

Because the stock markets didn't fall as he wanted them to, Le Chiffre searches for a new way to get his money back by setting up an all steaks game at the Casino Royale in Montenegro. Bond joins the game, and on the way meets with his new assistant Vesper Lynd, an agent for the Treasury, who is there to make sure the money goes where necessary. Can Bond beat Le Chiffre in the game and save the much needed millions? Is there a relationship brewing between the reluctant Vesper and Bond? Only the movie has the answer...

As mentioned, this film is just, fantastic! It really is. I loved every minute of it and could watch it over and over again. No cocky one liners, no half baked schemes, just some good honest British Spy Action! Give this Director a knighthood!
4/10
The movie is nice but it's no Bond movie.
e-hekkert29 November 2006
I've seen that there were lots of people that find it a fantastic Bond movie but i can't agree at all. Yes as a movie i liked it but i hated it as a Bond movie. No Q, no gadgets, no moneypenny and for me bond should be a ladykiller and i'm sorry but i can't find Daniel Craig to be a ladykiller. For me he looks like a boxer that was to late to duck a few times.

And whats with this prequel but not a prequel stuff. I'm not against the thought of a Bond prequel but then make it a real prequel and not a half one. Bond exists already for years and in set times. How can you have a prequel that plays in 2006. It ruined the movie for me.

I hope the next movie will be a traditional Bond movie again with a Bond that i can believe again and then i'll try to forget that i ever saw this one. If they continue in this line then (for me) the Bond movies stopped at "Die Another Day".
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best Bond since the Connery Classics 'From Russia with Love' & 'Goldfinger'
witster1820 November 2006
Casino Royale succeeds on many different levels. It gives us a fresh new face, a prequel-type story, and the superb action we've all come to expect from the franchise. The action scenes are superlative with some of the best stunt-work I've seen in recent years. Craig's bond is more realistic..athletic. For the first time, Bond's womanizing, training, and his cold-blooded nature are given true substance, instead of being an assumption(or at least the first time since On Her Majesty's Secret Service). We go on an emotional roller-coaster with Bond, feeling his pain, mourning his loss, finally realizing who he really is...

The lack of gadgets is more than made up for in beautiful women, fast cars, and truly incredible action. The cinematography and overall look of the film is superb. I like the opening song, but the credit design could have been a little better. One of the few weaknesses. Better credit design and more gadgets and this would be my first 10/10 Bond film. Craigs one liners are sharp and witty, yet Bond seems to have outgrown the silliness and CGI, and graduated to the big time. 'Casino Royale' has solidified Craig's hold on 'Bond' for quite some time, and rejuvenated the franchise. This is easily the best Bond in over 20-30?-40? years and ranks up there with the top two or three in the entire series. I'm sure that may not sit well with some of the Bond ''traditionalist"..but IT IS that good.

last thought....with the suspect acting we've seen from the female leads over the last six or seven films, Green is a breath of fresh air. 90/100 Bravo!
4/10
Cynical story with a poor plot
jim-proffit27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I didn't like this film. I think the marketing department have done a wonderful job promoting this movie, but that doesn't make this a good film. Firstly: the script is lame, an anti-climax to say to least. The viewer is left with dissatisfaction. Bond doesn't meet his enemy in the final battle, someone else does the dirty job for him (!). In this way Bond is castrated, left unsatisfied (with the viewer). The end is all too depressing, not because of the story, but because it's bad screen writing. It's more like a very long TV-series episode, but it doesn't work well as an independent feature film, with a beginning, middle and the ending. It limps.

I suppose the meaning with all this violence, betrayal and nihilism in the movie was to explain Bond as person, why he has become that what he is. The problem of course is, that there already is about 20 Bond films that have shaped the Bond archetype, the ideal Bond that we all know and love. A heroic figure, who never loses his cool. A British gentleman. In "Casino Royale" however, our Bond is a temperamental hot blooded thug, who goes after the bad guy to stab him with a knife, just because he got humiliated at the poker table??? I highly suspect that this psycho would have passed the British Secret service psych-tests, no no no...

The plot has lot of other stupidities and silliness. The actions and appearance of those Uganda soldiers to collect their money from the main villain, Le Chiffre, was unnecessary. It came just too rapidly, out of nowhere, and was useless to the plot basically. There was no need to emphasize the villain's greed for money, it's taken for granted. Also when they tried to kill Bond in the hotel, it's not really believable. Professional soldiers wouldn't mess like that and attract unnecessary attention to themselves. It was just for bang bang action I guess, to write them stupid. The poisoning scene and how to survive out of it was just plain ridiculous.

Another stupid question is, how come Bond didn't suspect the Vesper Lynd character when she "somehow" managed to survive from the torture chamber? The end of the movie is down right depressing, nihilism at it's worst. Well, maybe it explains our main character and his motives in the future: A misogynist killer, who has a license to kill and doesn't trust nobody

Just to be fair, there was few scenes where it looked promising. The action sequence in the beginning was good, as always. Superb action very well done and choreographed. Few scenes with Vesper Lynd and Bond flirting also had a classy quality, which reminded me of the old Bond charm.

I suppose the writers had a task to update Bond to this day, but I'm not sure if this is the right way. "More realistic" is what many have said about Casino Royale, what ever that means. Sure, Bond is now more cynical and more full of hate than ever, so if it reflects the values of world today, maybe it is "realistic" then.
6/10
Trying to sell margarine as butter
lastliberal6 May 2007
Daniel Craig is not James Bond despite the fact that we have been subjected to a 2 and one half hour sales presentation. No, this was not a Bond movie but an attempt to convince us that we needed Craig. They failed miserably.

Yes, I am upset that Pierce Brosnan was replaced, but I really tried to forget that while I watched this movie. I wanted to give it a fair chance.

Some may criticize the title sequence for lack of the traditional Bond women, but I thought it was absolutely brilliant. It was one of the best titles I have seen.

The chase in the beginning was also a masterpiece. I kept think that this would make for a real Olympic Decathalon competition. I know it is all movie magic, but I forgot that while I was watching - it was that good.

After that, the movie over over. Craig is not Bond. He looks too old and has no sophistication. Bond is not a cold killing machine. He performs his job with flair and style. Craig has none of that.

And, what's with this torture? That belongs in 24, not a Bond movie.

Eva Green is extremely lovely, but was totally wasted in this film.

There were no Bond women in this film. That would have distracted us from the sales job on Craig.

I'm not buying.
8/10
Great movie! Slow at times.
chi_town_fed25 December 2021
This film has the greatest opening Bond chase scene in the history of the franchise. Watching Bond and the bad guy run in the construction area was phenomenal. The casting is great, including the villain(s).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond has taken a wrong turn here
phd_travel24 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There are many things wrong with this movie. I used to like rewatching Bond movies with Sean Connery and Roger Moore and even Pierce Brosnan because they are so entertaining. But this one is just revolting.

1. Daniel Craig is a good actor but he is just NOT handsome enough to be Bond. He is a character actor and looks like the bad guy. Bond is supposed to be good looking and sophisticated. There are so many other actors they could have chosen who are more suited to the role.

2. Eva Green as a Bond girl? Think of the tradition of stunning beauties in the past from Ursula Andress to Jane Seymour to Kim Basinger to Teri Hatcher. Now look at Eva Green who is so lacking in sex appeal.

3. The torture scene. Bond is supposed to get out of scrapes in the nick of time - not get wacked in the you know what.

4. Judi Dench is wrong for her role. She looks more like a village grandmother than MI6.

Producers and directors wake up. You got it all wrong here. No one will look back on this as a Bond classic like Goldfinger.
1/10
Tiresome and Boring and so Un-Bond
zombiemockingbird27 December 2019
I guess Daniel Craig was playing a more stoic unemotional Bond; but most of the time it came off completely one-dimensional, flat and detached, like Craig might be thinking about something else all the time, like what he was going to have for lunch. There's definitely a lot of action, but it's so constant and over the top unrealistic that it just got boring after a while. The rest of the actors were more like animated cartoon characters; even the bad guys were just flat, boring and uninteresting. As for the "love interest", there was zero chemistry and she was just as lifeless and dull as everyone else. M came off like she wished they had cut her out of the movie like Q and Money Penney. Everyone seemed like a caricature of actual people. Maybe I was just having a bad day, but this just failed to entertain me or even hold my interest at all.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Some bits were breathtaking-Others were poor
jacobhenrytucker-18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When you're going to see a bond movie you think action, drama, comedy and of course sex! Well if you're looking to see that, don't watch this movie! Daniel Craig plays James Bond who is back again to solve another mission. Bond first starts the movie with a breathtaking scene when he is chasing a black bomb maker in Madagascar. They end up fighting on a crane which gives you a bit of vertigo. Bond then chases the black man up to the Madagascan Embassy, what a coincidence! Bond then gets arrested by the guards at the Embassy but blows the place up and of course escapes.

There are a lot of advantages with Daniel Craig, he's funny, witty and has a great physique which is shown quite a lot in the movie. Not to mention a sex scene with a beautiful Colombian woman who has to be the wife of the bad guy they're after.

Now this is when the boring bits come: He then has a big argument with M (Dame Judy Dench) about the bust-up at the Embassy in Madagascar and his one night with the bad guy's stunning wife who gets tortured and killed for her troubles. M then tells Bond that she is thinking of killing him! Bond then goes to Montenegro to have a game of poker at of course Casino Royale against the bad guy Mr LeChiffre. Bond then finds out that he has to beat Mr LeChiffre at poker otherwise Mr LeChiffre with invest the winnings in a terrorist country. After four hours of poker, Bond finally wins the grand prize of $150m.

Finally this is the most horrific thing of all, Bond falls in love! Bond doesn't fall in love! He's supposed to be having one nights with girls and then leaving them to fight crime but no, he falls in love.

The last three scenes of the movie are in Venice where Bond and his new hubby Vesper (Eva Green) are at a hotel when the hotel starts to melt, Vesper eventually drowns leaving Bond heartbroken.

It then turns out that Vesper has been working for the bad guys all along so Bond returns to London to solve another crime in the hopeful next movie.
10/10
Brilliant Bond Reboot
RussHog14 March 2020
Daniel Craig's first Bond film is a masterpiece. It is a very complicated plot - but once you understand it - the journey of the spy's quest to foil a plot by (Quantom/Spectre) the enemy agents it's really a great story. There are a lot of enemy agents and each one of them has a highly complex motive. Bond takes them all on. He has a major babe that he puts the moves on. This is a look at Bond more like how he is in the books - with some tragedy and depth. Also - some of the best musical scores in the series.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Shocking
phil_m_griffiths15 December 2006
I love Bond films and without any doubt this was the worst one yet. No characters, Bond was as swarve as an English football thug. M what a joke, no gadgets, modern elements ie free jumping in what is technically older times. The story was rubbish, and moneypenny muwhahahahahaaa appalling! Bad guy, hello we are missing a bad guy – who was the bad guy again lol I would say style over content – but there was no style, so lets go for hype over style over content – it's a nut shell what a load of crap! Even my kids disliked it – thank god I didn't go to the cinema to watch this borderline triple X tripe!

Lets hope they don't make another one like this!
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Mixed feelings - It was OK....(but why was pig faced old 'M' left in?)
ali6969uk18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I will start off by saying I try not to comment on films which already have so many viewer opinions already UNLESS I have something unique to add or was moved strongly for or against the film. I think the film was OK - I am neither pro or anti this Bond entry. It was a fair action film on its own merit if not quite what we expect of Bond.

One concern I have that nobody else has so far touched on is that old & very small pig faced woman that plays 'M'. Dame Judi Dench. "WHY IS SHE CAST IN THIS NEW BOND???" I am not against HER but if this is a REBIRTH of Bond surely she should have gone along with Q, Moneypenny etc. Considering this was SET before the other Bonds, the Actress so closely identified with Brosnan's era should not be in it! It may seem a small thing to other viewers but it made it HARD for me to watch this new Bond as if I had never seen the others. I am surprised at the producers for this "Glitch in the Matrix". A COMPLETE overhaul was the way to go.

PS Vesper Lynd should have been called Miss Wet Muff.
9/10
Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand.
hitchcockthelegend7 April 2011
Casino Royale is directed by Martin Campbell and adapted by Neil Purvis, Robert Wade & Paul Haggis from a story written by Ian Fleming. It stars Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright & Giancarlo Giannini. It's the 21st film in the James Bond franchise.

Plot finds Craig as Bond, newly promoted to 00 status, he is thrust into the murky world of high financed terrorism.

One of the hardest series of films to get right, with some of the most committed of fans, is that of the James Bond series. To wit, there will never ever be a Bond film that will appease every fan across the board. The complaints will range from not enough gadgets, too far removed from Fleming's essence, not serious enough and vice a versa: too darn serious. Then there is the usual round of arguments concerning the leading man stepping into the tuxedo, for every Bond fan ready to fight to the death in the name of Sean Connery, I'll find you another prepared to back Timothy Dalton's take on the Martini swigging legend. Once it became clear that Pierce Brosnan had run his course as Bond, bowing out with the super silly Die Another Day in 2002, the pressure for any new Bond, both the actor and the makers, was immense. 2006 and time had moved on, and we live in different cinema times, spy movies are a different breed to what went before, The Bourne Identity had raised the bar. The news filtered thru that Bond was to be rebooted and that Daniel Craig was the man to be Bond. The howls of derision could be heard from as far as the tropical locations so in keeping with a James Bond plot. Too Blonde, too craggy faced, not tall enough, and why reboot a much loved franchise anyway? It was war and the heat was turned up to full.

Casino Royale still has its critics, but as majorities go as regards a Bond film, this one has the biggest sway. Sure, the Daniel Craig haters will not be bowed, they can't after all lose face after such a vitriolic campaign against his casting, but few, I suspect, can seriously deny Casino Royale is not a magnificent Bond movie. Just a peak at the Worldwide box office figures shows you how well received it was, making nearly $600 million, those are figures that do not lie. The truth is that Casino Royale has almost everything you could wish for from a Bond movie, and a little more. Gorgeous locations, beautiful women and reams of action; where, the stunt department reach new heights. It's also refreshingly in keeping with Fleming's original story, only major difference here is that the makers have upgraded it to a post 9/11 world. There's nods to traditional franchise staples, whilst also neatly streamlining some of the previous film's comedy scene fillers. Smart villain too, Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre, complete with creepy eye issue and loyal girlfriend, is a villain not trying to blow up the world because he's mad, but trying to outwit Bond to stay alive! That's great stuff that keeps a Bond thriller alive and well.

But for all the energy and pyrotechnics (there's enough in this one film to have filled half a dozen of previous Bond entries), a Bond film can only succeed if the leading man is up to scratch. Thankfully, and joyously, Craig nails it, both in physicality, swagger and raw egotistical aggression. More telling is that Craig's Bond is more human that what we are used too, at one time suave and appearing unruffled, the next, bruised battered and emotionally conflicted. This is a new and rounded Bond, given impetus by Craig's powerful presence. He is helped by Eva Green putting brains and slinkiness into Vesper Lynd, a Bond girl to turn Bond's head in a way not seen since Diana Rigg's Tracy di Vicenzo in OHMSS. Though one of the film's rare missteps is to under write the part. Felix Leiter also gets a quality tune up in the form of Jeffrey Wright, Judi Dench's M kicks arse and Giancarlo Giannini adds a touch of continental class as Bond's Montenegro contact René Mathis. Layered over the top is a nifty score by David Arnold, blending traditional Bond flavours with high energy bursts and Phil Meheux's photography brings optical delights in the Bahamas, Czech Republic and Italy.

Opening with the best chase sequence in the whole franchise and closing with an ultimate Bond moment, this is reboot supreme. It's high energy with intelligent humanistic smarts and Bond is back: blonder, brutal and most assuredly better. 9/10
7/10
After the hype...
Skint11127 November 2006
Now that everyone's calmed down a bit perhaps we can find some perspective on this film. Casino Royale is not a particularly good Bond film that will not play well on television and in years to come will be regarded as one of the most pedestrian of the series. First, the good points. Daniel Craig. He can clearly act, looks muscular, has a nice line in economical humour and is to the point, often ruthlessly so. Some of the dialogue is snappy and crisp, particularly the male/female exchanges - you could almost smell the Haggis. But that's only SOME of the dialogue - a lot of it, and there is a lot of it, is dry. (Great last line, though.) The trouble with the movie is that it is deliberately joyless. Much of what made the Bond universe such fun - the over the top villains, the ludicrous gadgets, the massive set pieces - have been jettisoned. With the exception of the initial chase and the Miami Airport scene, there's little memorable action going on. A film that has as its central scene a game of cards, for that's what it is, has a problem. The game just isn't cinematic, and no matter how simplified the rules are for us, it's not 100% clear what's going on. Cards with a banker. What thrills. Very long, often slow, rarely electrifying, Casino Royale will sell a lot of tickets and give Richard Branson a little giggle, but won't go down as a great Bond film, or even a great film.
5/10
Count me out, if this is the new direction for Bond.
jordanbeaver24 November 2006
This was the most predictable, least interesting, most commercialized and least 'Bond' James Bond movie yet. I knew going in that it wouldn't be the classic Bond formula, but a large portion of my fellow IMDb reviewers were claiming it was still a good movie. Thanks for nothing. I should keep in mind when reading IMDb's reviews that these are the same people that put LOTR:Return of the King near the top of the list... but enough with my rant.

While I didn't like the idea of Daniel Craig as Bond going in, I think he played this new Bond well. Yeah, I'm down with the new direction.. and I firmly believe that each Bond actor needs his own style.. so I wouldn't mind seeing a better script and a better director have another go at it with Mr Craig. As always, Judi Dench is flawless and powerful.. every scene involving her was worth watching. It was everything else that turned me off. There is a lot to be desired in terms of the plot, the pacing and the dialog... I really think that this could have been a great movie (worthy of the top 250, which it is currently disgracing by the finest of margins) in the hands of a better writer & director.
4/10
Blah Bond
dainman-220 November 2006
I can't say this was a bad movie, it wasn't, but as a James Bond movie I really felt it failed miserably. It seems like an attempt to Americanize and dumb down the character (and the movie.) Somewhere between XXX and Jason Bourne it was a decent action movie, but totally hollow when compared to an established Bond character. I would even be willing to buy into this movie as a study in the evolution of the character but it didn't even do that well. Villain - poor, love interest - poor, plot as presented - poor, ability to care about ANY of the characters - poor. The only character I got remotely excited about was one of the cars and that was incredibly brief. I think the 'Bourne' movies do a much better job making this type of movie and that character has twice the panache of this 'Bond.'
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Jame Bond-Casino Royale - A huge disappointment
marianecas12 February 2007
I have been a great fan of 007 movies and despite the fact I though the actor would not meet the "James Bond" profile I was expecting some of the sophisticated and charming character that we have been used to. I was quite disappointed. I never thought possible watching "James Bond" on a casino table without a jacket, eat and speak at the same time, but those white stockings were the cherry on top of the cake. The movie's first seconds were exhausting, I felt like going there and stop them. These are the things I remember most about the movie, which is clearly a disappointment. Because I think a movie is a result of a number of things that it this one did not had. I liked the movie's photography, the sceneries, the directors work, music and history.

Manuela
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Destined to be a classic
dbborroughs19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is back and he's kicking butt.

The best Bond in years, this is a no nonsense approach thats more or less realistic, certainly the most realistic of all Bond films yet produced (except for maybe the first hour of Die Another Day and a good chunk of For Your Eyes Only). This is the Bond of the books, mean and nasty and doing what ever it takes.

The plot has the recently appointed 007 going after a terrorist organization. Bond follows the money and he soon finds himself in the middle of a high stakes poker game where the terrorist money man is trying desperately to win back the money he's lost gambling. Along the way there is a great deal of brutal in your face action as Bond kills or destroys anything that gets in his way. Its more amazing than the action in most of the last five or six films because the film is so close to real so you actually feel more danger, this could happen while an invisible car probably won't Its edge of your seat material, with Daniel Craig turning in a dynamite performance as Bond.

If the film has any real flaw its that its too long. Running almost two and a half hours the film stalls after the poker game and Bond's capture. There is a dead spot, more a false ending, before the finale in Venice, which while exciting and one of the great movie action scenes, seems some how anti climatic. Its not a fatal flaw, but if you're like me you'll reach this one point and then be ready for the exit. I looked at my watch and found that there was still 25 minutes to go.

If you're an action fan or Bond fan see this movie. Its destined to be a classic.
1/10
Discontinuity Abounds. . .
izmulsa22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
24 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" has to be the worst James Bond film I have ever seen! One of my biggest pet peeves of any film in a series of films is when it negates all of the previous films in the series—which this one most decidedly does. Because M is just now promoting James Bond to double-0 status, logic would dictate that it would be a prequel movie. This cannot be the case, however, given that the first James Bond film, "Doctor No," was released in 1962. Ian Fleming's novel "Casino Royale" was published in 1953, six years before his "Doctor No" novel was published. Therefore, to be a prequel movie "Casino Royale" should be set in the late 1950s or early 1960s—something disproved by the film's references to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, the use of cellular phones, global-positioning technology, etc.

I must object to the absence of John Cleese, Samantha Bond, and Colin Salmon. Ian Fleming's 1953 novel DID FEATURE both Q and Miss Moneypenny. So where were they in this film? The only carry-over characters were M and Felix Leiter.

Having said all of this…I did enjoy Daniel Craig as James Bond and the return of Judi Dench as M.

It is the continuity issues that perturb me. I can't believe that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade helped with this destruction of the James Bond film legacy, and I can't believe that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli gave their stamps of approval on this film as Executive Producers. Charles K. Feldman's 1967 spoof film "Casino Royale" should have remained the only "Casino Royale" film to be produced.
9/10
Blondes have more fun - the name is Blond, James Blond
AirBourne_Bds3 December 2006
I will state it from the start my two fave Bonds were Timothy Dalton & Sean Connery...

The idea of a blond twit as 007? Please!

What John Byrne did in comics with Superman in the 1986 series "Man Of Steel" is what the new crew crafted for this MI6 agent...

You have some old and new mixed together to create a delicious mixture of spicy sexiness indeed!

Gadgets galore still abound, such as the Sony Ericsson k800i and M600 cellphones that gave 3D floorplans when the new double-Oh was at work.

All of the latest Sony Vaio laptops were in gorgeous display enthralling the viewer with all of their potential!

Felix Leiter is now 21st centuried into an Afro-American, and stays in form as an ally of Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre Craig's villainous foil with the weeping eye had all the required chill needed for the evil counterpoint for Bond's shadowy virtue.

Martin Campbell at al. had to get a newer Bond, those fight scenes could not be handled with or w/o a stuntman by a fella as advanced as Pierce Brosnan, suave as he is...

The opening pursuit tableau in Uganda reminded me of those Tony Jaa chase scenes in "Ong-Bak" and the gritty nastiness that Daniel Craig shifts in and out of like his blessed Aston Martin would not have been well manoeuvred by ye olde Brosnan!

Craig's fights were extremely realistic and brutally convincing, and the film was chock-a-block with quips that can' be delivered as they give away numerous scenes...

All I'll say is when I hear "Allow me," I'll now smirk every time! If I reveal why then I'll breach my handler then I might -- ? This message ends on a secure line **Xfer Complete**

http://tinyurl.com/3464k/
1/10
awful Daniel Craig is charmless bore never be a star
sales-28216 December 2006
so much for the nonsense hype Daniel Craig is simply not a star he hasn't got the charisma, humour, looks, personality, ability, depth, sincerity, quality, intelligence etc The list of what he ain't got is long

He is NOT the definitive bond

The toughest most serious Bond was Timothy Dalton, a fantastic bond and great welsh stage actor. he was the closest the Fleming's bond.

Connery was the best overall as he had a bit of everything and he basically created the franchise

Moore was slapstick but at least got a few laughs

lazenby did a decent one off job and brosnan brought it all back to life. brosnan was a great Bond he had wry dry humour, good looks, experience, decent actor charm etc. The only thing he was short of was Connery or Dalton's harder edge

so Craig bulked up on the weights? big deal. if they just wanted a hard man with muscles then just roll out Mr Olympia or the governator Arnie or Stallone.

so much for English subtlety. they just went for a muscle bound bore id have backed someone like Clive Owen who has a great balance of most things
8/10
Danny Boy gets the gig.
ween-324 December 2006
Gotta give credit where it's due. This movie hits all the buttons you want from a Bond flick. Great opening chase scene, great closing blow-it-all-to-smithereens scene, great looking Bond girls and snappy cinematography. And the newest Bond, Daniel Craig, proudly carries on the tradition without slipping into the Austin Powers self-parody trap lurking around every corner.

Have to love the opening. After using every imaginable mode of transportation from speedboats to hotsh*t race cars to jets to skis for the chase scenes in the previous Bond flicks, I would have figured they'd run out of options and just re-cycle. So, instead, the producers hit on the ONE mode of transportation that hadn't yet been used... Running. Lord help me. Running. On foot. And it WORKS!!! All I can say to Marty Campbell is "You had me at "hello".

Great twist on the "Shaken, not stirred" line, too. Cute retro move on the opening title credits. The theme song ain't really up to snuff, but that's my only real complaint here.

All in all, not quite "Goldfinger", but not bad. Thought that a blonde Bond would create a rift in the cosmos and suck the universe into a some black hole in the space-time continuum. Thought I'd come out of the movie screaming "I knew Sean Connery. Sean Connery was a friend of mine. And you, my friend, are no Sean Connery". But Daniel Craig pulls it off. Go figure. I stand corrected. And more important...I sit entertained.
5/10
Most Un-bond Movie Ever Made
abhinav-prakash9 April 2011
I have never seen James Bond more helpless, unsure, lost, pitiful, weak, and left to circumstances than in this Bond Movie. The masterful and and man-in-control aura given to the character of 007 by Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnon are so thoroughly shredded apart that Bond in this movie is a better impersonation of a dimwit street thug, than a deadly operative of British Secret Thugs.

There are at least three sequences in movie where Bond is completely at the mercy of fate for his survival. Such humane angle are good if you are making a sensitive, heart touching movie, but out of place for a screen name legendary for its toughness.

The action sequences are okay but the story line is so stretched that it becomes considerably thin by the end. And Daniel Craig seems like the the silliest of the Bonds to play role ever and there is a movie which should be avoided at all cost.But of course, if you are comfortable viewing Bond writhing to death by poison, or getting his balls beaten to pulp, then go for it.
2/10
Couldn't gel with me?
patlightfoot4 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I personally sat through about 30 minutes of the movie. I could not get into it, nor did my son, who is a Bond fan.

I thought Daniel Craig was too common to be a Bond, lacked the polish, I expected, and the editing was awful, that I think probably lost me.

It didn't come up to the expectations of the other Bond movies, that we all knew were fantasy, but fun to watch. I don't think Daniel Craig, although I think he could become a good character actor in say 'The Sweeney' or some type of film like that, does not match up to Sean, or even Roger or Pierce. He lacks class. That James Bond, has to have!

Sorry, probably was not in the right mood to watch it.

Pat
1/10
James Bond's deeds are even more admirable now, since they are being accomplished without the help of gadgets. Usual James Bond story, minus the fun and the gadgets.
Sophia-Drossopoulou26 November 2006
This James Bond takes himself too seriously, and loses all the appeal of the James Bond films.

James Bond used to be light-hearted, unpretentious, gadget-ridden. You entered an uncomplicated fantasy, and enjoyed the adventure, the beautiful girls, the fast cars, and the repartee.

This James Bond has no gadgets, and therefore his deeds are much more admirable than his predecessors. This James Bond has deep feelings, and doubts, and therefore the audience is invited to consider him as a real human being, and is invited to sympathise with all he does, and all what the secret services apparently do, to save the public from the "baddies". At the same time, he keeps the Aston Martin and the beautiful girls.

I have enjoyed James Bond while he did not expect to be taken seriously; but I cannot stomach combination of lack of subtlety, the superficial "feelings", and the glamour in the new one.

If James Bond script writers want the subject to be serious, then they should drop the glamour, and get to an honest discussion of the use and abuse of power of the secret services.
8/10
Not my dad's James Bond, that's for sure
Smells_Like_Cheese22 July 2008
When I was a kid, my father and I constantly watched all the James Bond films together, I always loved every adventure James got into, the women, the villains, the gadgets, everything about James Bond just equals fun and excitement. But the later James Bond films haven't been so pleasant to watch, so I just stayed clear of Casino Royale. But I heard nothing but good things about Casino Royale, so I decided to go ahead and see what this movie was going to be like. So I rented it, I watched it last night and I wasn't expecting anything special, but I really loved Casino Royale, it was so different than what we are used to with our James Bond films. Not to mention Daniel Craig, the James Blonde, I know a lot of people were having doubts, for those who haven't seen this, watch it, Daniel will definitely take your doubts away.

James Bond in his first years as an agent has his first major assignment. He is the best card player in the organization, so his boss, M, sends him to beat a mafia boss, Le Chiffre, who is taking so much money. James is set up with Vesper, a foxy beautiful woman who is the head of Treasury, and is pretending to be his wife during this whole charade. But when Le Chiffre is onto Bond and Vesper, they may wanna think about not being a secret agent so much any more.

Casino Royale goes where no other James Bond movie has gone before, it's a lot more darker, it's more realistic, even though you know that these gadgets are over the top, they seem like they could exist. The actors are just top notch, we have Dame Judi Dench who's Bond's boss, she was a great addition to the franchise. Eva Green was a great Bond girl and her last scene was beautifully shot; I was really impressed with the editing, the action scenes, the movie shots, everything about this movie was just great and was so much fun to watch, it's pure entertainment, I highly recommend it.

8/10
10/10
Satisfactory Bond, Unsatisfactory Film
mcsheehey29 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" starts off well enough with an obligatory murder scene and an entertaining chase. Unfortunately, from this point, it's all downhill. The rest of the film moves very slowly and without much conviction. Anytime there is even a hint at an intense action moment, it dies away momentarily. There are so many problems with this film that it would be impossible for them to be over-shadowed by its triumphs. The acting is almost uniformly average. Judi Dench is witty as usual in her role as "M", but we've seen her in the role before. Eva Green tries her best to be clever and strong, but she ends up falling flat. Her character simply becomes more and more simplistic, never regrowing the intensity we see at her introduction. Daniel Craig has a similar problem as Jmaes Bond. Though he gives a satisfactory performance, he has no real hint of the fun and witty personality we've come to expect from James Bond. Instead, he seems to be more of a hollow shell. The worst casting decision in the film was that of "Le Chiffre." Instead of a classic Bond villain, he comes off as an ambitious pawn who seems to have a good poker game. Still, the film's biggest problem is the story line. The creators of this film have removed any trace of action-packed fun from the franchise. There are no gadgets, no exciting car chases, no "Q", and no scenes of true intensity that made the franchise famous. This is a simple, low-octane, and predictable poker movie that has been elevated to blockbuster status only because of the franchise it is connected to.
4/10
Unpolished character masquerading as a 007
amoore-45 December 2006
Well, it appears I'm in the minority, but I was thoroughly disappointed by this unbelievable portrayal of the British super secret agent.

The movie strays so far from the Bond genre, if it weren't for the theme music, Judy Dench as 'M', and the obvious bundle blown on special effects, you wouldn't be able to discern it from any of the other over-the-top, unbelievable and strictly for entertainment movies coming out of Hollywood these days. It will be a great disappointment for fans of James Bond who have enjoyed (most of) the films over the years since From Russia with Love. This one bears little resemblance to the much loved 007 movies. In fact it is irreverent and the lead is even nasty at times.

In the 90s, I did not expect Pierce Brosnan to fit the mold, but he actually did a decent job and has since broadened considerably as an actor. But this lead!.... he tries so terribly hard to look and act tough I laughed at some of his attempts...

It also appears to be a vehicle to validate Hollywood's decision to name Craig as the next James Bond at the expense of focusing on believability and character development. His character is distant almost frosty, his portrayal two dimensional, and the stunts totally ridiculous. No one believed the opening chase scenes did they? For me the movie fails to excite. Even his love interest, Eva Green, hates him for most of the movie. There is almost no chemistry between them, replaced instead by barbs and insults dressed as sexual innuendo. And when it happens -- like most of the action scenes in the movie -- it's unbelievable... she's much too easy a catch for him in the end.

This movie is a perfect example of reinvention taken to the unfortunate extreme which results in something that no longer resembles the original product... welcome to the new angry Bond with little of the class, polish, and panache that got him there in the first place.
9/10
The best Bond film
DeBBss22 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is one of the best Bond movies ever made. Everything about it makes it so much more superior over the other films. First, the action is the best in the entire franchise. Everybody knows the parkour chase scene at the beginning of the film. The action is entertaining and well choreographed. The villain of Casino Royale, Le Chiffre, is interesting and fun to watch. The character design and acting of Mads Mikkelsen really brings this character to life.

Most of the run time is spent on a poker match, which may seem boring, but it isn't. The directing and acting makes it entertaining and intense. Eventually, the poker match ends and we get the third act. In my opinion, Casino Royale has one of the best romances in the franchise. The Bond girl, Vesper Lynd, is actually treated like a character, and not some girl who is just attractive and nothing else.

Overall, the film is great. Amazing directing and editing, flawless acting, and perfect pacing. Casino Royale is a must watch; it's everything a Bond movie should be.
8/10
Big and beautiful
blanche-224 September 2007
Everything about the latest James Bond flick, "Casino Royale," is big and first-rate. Humongous action sequences, glorious scenery, a tense plot, a to-die-for Bond, incredibly beautiful women, and villains beyond evil. Daniel Craig is Bond, and when you get a look at his body, watch out. Not to mention those turquoise eyes. He's a tough Bond with less of a sense of humor and less relaxed than some previous 007s, but he fits the 21st century very well.

This "Casino Royale" is far superior to the 1967 episodic film which had huge problems including actors who refused to be in the same room with one another during scenes, different writers writing dialogue for the same scene that didn't match, things like that. This version is an actual story, with Bond going after a financier of terrorists, Le Chiffre, in order to take all the money in a poker game. Things don't work out as planned; Bond is nearly killed right at the poker table, among other situations. And the terrorists want the money being gambled away - enough to kill and torture for it.

"That's quite a body count you've been stacking up," M (Judi Dench) tells Bond. Indeed, he's taking people out right and left and acting like a renegade.

Bond, with his loose sexuality and attitude toward women isn't exactly a modern hero. Here, with the excellent performance of Daniel Craig, he comes closer than he has in a while to being a Bond for this century.
2/10
Don't Buy Junk Bonds
rcoss20013 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK MAJOR SPOILER alert here. Do not read any further if you don't want to know why this movie stinks. Just accept that it does and go see "Deja Vu". Do you remember "New Coke"? OK, don't say I didn't warn you. First off this movie is ersatz Bond. There is an opening sequence in black-and-white. Why? To establish age? Flashback? I dunno. But worse is the premise of the sequence. Bond must make two "kills" before he gets his double "0" designation. Now since the "00" is the "License to Kill" what were the first two? Murder? Unsanctioned hits? Fun? Then the opening title/credits with an absolutely tiresome theme and no "Bond women" in the animation. OK, this is the "new Bond" Then we get a Bond who breaks in to M's apartment? What the hell is that about? James Bond would not do that. No god agent who wants to keep his job would. OK, we go on to a Bond who does not seem to like women, just uses them. In the other Bond movies we get a sense of Bond using women, yes, but because he likes them and they like him. There are three women in this movie and he toys with one(no sex however) and she ends up dead. She's married a minor villain and Bond later tells the next woman he prefers married women. The third woman, while a plot point, has no lines and might as well not exist. This was not the Bond we knew. He was willing and able to romance all sorts of women. The second woman he Falls in LOVE with and spends time romancing after the mission is supposedly over. Bond has been married before and since then Bond loves em and leaves em. Oh, that's right this is the "new" Bond. So why the old "M"?

I have read the James Bond novels(yes, they were books first) and while this Bond is more realistic- he is no Superman, nor does he have more than a couple of gadgets, he still seems just a bit of a stilted thug. OK, there were no wisecracks to speak of, the one while he is being tortured falling absolutely flat to my ears. In fact most of the dialogue stunk. Bond don't care if his martini is shaken or stirred? Yeah, right. My wife pointed out there was no sense of fun in the movie. She likes Bond movies, but she felt this Bond was not suave, did not look right in a suit and "just felt wrong'. Finally the manipulative ending. Bond goes for sadistic revenge of the death of his girl. He finally says the line "I'm Bond, James Bond" and that's the last line. No, I've seen James Bond, I know James Bond and you're no James Bond. Oh, and one more thing. Why the hell did you save the "James Bond Theme" for the closing credits?
1/10
Waist of Time
st200625 December 2006
Long, boring, not intelligent at all movie. Strip "James Bond" label from the movie, it will not make C-. It is not the "Bond" movie as we like to enjoy - sharp personalty, little sarcasm, sparks in the yeas of Bond. Craig is just another LAPD detective who happens to speak with the funny accent. Obviously, someone was trying to save a back on Brosanan.

We like all Bond's fantastic tools and toys - you will not see any in this movie. There are 2 sets of fights and a sinking house. They are glued to long pointless dialogs and a card game.

I think, it is the END of Bondina.
24 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Little action
henrycoles921 May 2020
An entire hour set around a spy trying to outsmart a terrorist at poker or bridge or whatever it was isn't my idea of a good spy movie. There was too little action for something that's supposed to be the reboot of a spy movie franchise, and Eva Green's character remained terribly undeveloped and so was her relationship to James Bond. I didn't feel for the two of them at all. Terribly underwhelming.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
007 action now limited to Sony cell phones, GPS, and text messaging
juicyburger200318 November 2006
007's opening scenes are always something to look forward to, but I must have blinked with this flick. Where was the spectacular scenery and huge action breath-taker? It just wasn't there.

007 is supposed to be solving global threats. In CR, Bond must win a stinking long POKER GAME? Why didn't he just shoot the wimpy villain in his bleeding eye and just get the thing over with?

The threat is not portrayed. I suppose the terrorists were really bad guys. You'd just have to use your imagination.

The most excitement in Casino Royale is watching people send and receive text messages.

Sony cell phones, Sony laptops. If Sony made autos, Bond would have been driving that instead of that little Ford. What was that? A prequel Pinto? CR's a rolling Sony advertisement by a body-building Bond.

But the reason why there's not much sizzle to the love scenes is that this Bond is surely gay! Really, since his divorce in '94, I'll wager his romances are with the same sex.
10/10
Now THAT'S James Bond!
LennyRenquist7 December 2006
Casino Royale is like a minty-fresh mouthwash, eradicating the vile taste of that CG puke-fest known as Die Another Day. I literally felt CLEANSED after seeing it. I'd gotten so used to the same old same old that I had ceased to think something like this could happen. Mike and Barb - with an assist from Purvis/Wade, Haggis, Campbell and DC - have given Jimbo a long-overdue spring cleaning - made him more real, more relevant, and ultimately more INTERESTING.

I really liked Brosnan's Bond – at the time. I think it was the hair. With GoldenEye, the Bond 'do' definitely reached its peak. Pierce was good in the part, too - convincing as a heavily Rodge-influenced (but slightly darker, more athletic) 007, spouting unfunny Bruce Fierstein-penned quips about frequent-flier mileage. Certainly, he seemed equally adept at coming to grips with a Kalashnikov, a Smirnoff or a Scorupco, but it is now clear (given fresh perspective) that by the end of his tenure both Pierce and the EON crew had LOST their grip on the character of JAMES BOND, as conceived by Ian Fleming.

DC has OPENED MY EYES. Sure, he has taken the Bond 'do' to a disappointing low (the flaxen hue doesn't bother me so much – it's just a bit scruffy), but the character has been roused from his torpor, woken from his coma, resurrected from the dead - a bit like his literal 'resurrection' in a scene from this movie. Given the new toned-down realism, the handy in-car defibrillator seems a tad convenient (and therefore unrealistic), but at least he's able to FIND HIS CAR this time. Imagine if a drugged, cardiac-arresting Brosnan-Bond had staggered out of Gustav Graves' ice palace, looking for the one thing that could save his life...

'Now, where the bloody hell did I PARK that thing? DAMN YOU, Q-BRANCH! LIGHT-EMITTING POLYMER MY TWITCHING, BLOODSHOT EYE!'

DC's Jimbo has a real 'no bulls--t' vibe to him, which is one of the major differences between him and Pierce. He isn't worried about rumpling his absurdly well-tailored clothes. If you prick him (or punch, shoot or stab him) he bleeds, and wears the marks for longer than one scene. His knuckles are scabby. His face is scratched. If Pierce's Bond was a prize poodle, DC's is a fighting pit bull in comparison.

But it's not only DC's acting skill and grasp of the character that make this movie great. It helps that they've got Fleming back as a foundation - which, considering how unlike any of the recent movies this is, only goes to show how far from Fleming's creation the films had strayed.

I do not lament the loss of Dr. Evil-style lairs or idiotic gadgets or one-note henchmen or stupid Bond-girl names...

...or TERRIBLE clunking puns! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good pun. A well-considered and subtle play on words really gets me going. But after forty years' worth of increasingly insipid wordplay, it's refreshing that the writers this time resisted the urge to try and squeeze the unlikeliest of lines from the least conducive of situations. Sure, it's disorienting at first, so accustomed are we to the dodgy one-liner as a fundamental law of the Bondiverse. Upon my first viewing I sensed awkward gaps after murders and close calls, the only sounds being the chirping of crickets and the expectant intake of breath from an audience bracing itself for something lame. But it never came. Wonderful.

Eva Green is a fantastic actor, and the script actually allows her to give a performance worthy of her talent. Let's face it, even the more accomplished Bond-girl actresses have come off looking a little superficial in the past (eg. Dame Diana, Carole Bouquet, Halle B). But Vesper is given a depth almost equal to that of Bond - and their relationship is more compelling for it. And it doesn't hurt that Eva is one of the most aesthetically-pleasing life forms ever to exist in this or any parallel universe.

Mads brings depth and humanity to the blood-weeping, asthmatic Le Chiffre. Yes, Bond Villains can be realistic AND have cheesy gimmicks.

Jeffrey Wright is excellent - but criminally underused - as Felix. I hope he's here to stay awhile (which would be another trend-breaker).

Caterina Murino: Yum.

Judi Dench: Scary - but it's her best M performance yet.

David Arnold's score is far less ostentatious than his previous efforts. His restraint with the Theme is very clever and far more sensible than I thought he could be.

You Know My Name: best theme song since Live 'n' Let Die.

Chris Cornell: cooler than Wings.

The action scenes are all superb - you can almost smell the blood and sweat. Sebastien Foucan is a superhuman freak.

The title sequence is fantastic. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's the best yet, despite the absence of naked female silhouettes. But who needs naked female silhouettes when you've got Eva wearing...

...THAT DRESS. I damn-near wept blood MYSELF when I saw her in that thing!

Discipline, 007...

What more can I say? I LOVE this flick. Is it my favourite? It's too soon to tell - but it makes Pierce's movies look like Rodge's movies, and Rodge's movies look like - like - Peter Sellers' Casino Royale!

Bond has begun, and I can't wait to see where he goes next.
8/10
They finally got it EXACTLY right!
Meven_Stoffat12 January 2012
Reading some of the negative reviews here, it breaks my heart plenty of the supposed Bond fans here who say Bond lacks charm and wit, and that this doesn't feel like a Bond movie.

If you've read the books, then you'd know that Bond, in the books, really was a nihilistic, cold hearted punk who constantly got into trouble left and right, screwed up nearly plan he had, risked his- and his allies'- lives for no reason and furthermore, asked carelessly and constantly annoyed MI6 with his careless actions. He isn't the suave playboy the movies make him out to be. Then again though, I guess it's no surprise considering there are more people familiar with the books. But if you say that Bond should be like the films, then you have no business really saying that you're a true Bond fan.

Alright, now I got that off my chest, this is an amazing movie.

Sure Bond being blonde was a bit of a bafflement. But he did indeed have blue eyes like the book said he did. Before this the closest we got to a REAL Bond was Timothy Dalton, who looked exactly like Bond, and was very tough too. But no, Craig IS Bond. Craig plays Bond exactly how he should be played. He brings out the toughness in Bond, as well as the naivety and the slight idiocy. If Fleming were still alive, he'd cry tears of joy knowing his wish for a TRUE Bond had come true.

Anyways. The plot is almost exactly like the book. Sure there are a few Changes, particularly in the poker subplot, but all around this is exactly like the book. As for the other things... Well, the opening theme is just AWESOME. I love Chris Cornell's theme. He achieves what many didn't do with their themes. He doesn't try to be too much like the old themes, but he gives it his own spin, a reserved and natural approach, and it works. I love the opening titles too, its like an animated story of how James became Bond.

In short, excellent movie. One you CANNOT miss.
2/10
Very overrated & does not deserve the hype...
game_of_death_20005 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I thought i'd like this after a few watches but i've still got a negative feeling about this one. As a huge Bond fan, I had mixed views on Casino Royale.

The Good: -

  • The prologue in black & white. (Let down by a dismal start that the other Bonds did memorably before the credits even began.)


  • The music by David Arnold.


  • The free-running sequence.


  • The airport sequence.


  • Daniel Craigs' performance.


The Bad: -

  • Too much card playing.


  • Eva Green being a Bond girl in the first place. Was not at all attractive and had a huge chip on her shoulder.


  • Not enough action.


Let's hope the next film Quantum of Solace is a worthy sequel to this. It has the talented and beautiful Gemma Arterton as Agent Fields so my hopes are pretty well high for this! Fingers crossed!
1/10
The Worst Bond Movie Ever
pejon-124 November 2006
First of all this is a two and a half hour sony commercial. Bond is weak, The movie is boring. I wanted to leave several times. The plot is lossy and the emotional chit chat totally against bond character. The new bond is unappealing and his eyes are digitally enhanced. Even the special effects are not what they used to be. We come to expect more from bond, bond is not some lame superhero with a darker troubled side.

For me Sony has totally ruined bond. One cant only hope this is the last we see of this new bond. A sad day for bond fans everywhere. This really even makes me wish they bring back pierce brosnan. Also the opening scene tough arguably the best scene in the movie is a lot less dramatic the normal for bond.
36 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Casino Royale
pujolshrking18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
45 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went in to watch James Bond, not some insequre blonde loser. I don't care if Sean Connery is 90 years old and in a wheel chair he'd still be a better as 007. We gave these people 150 million dollars for Die Another Day four years ago and they decide to replace Pierce Brosnan and detach from the standards that have kept the series going for over 40 years. Way to go Sony. Way to Craig. Way to go Campbell. You realize this cancels out GoldenEye. Signs this movie is not a 007 movie: 1. He drives a Ford Focus and he crashes the Astin Martin 2. Daniel Craig 3. Blonde 4. He says "I love you" 5. Doesn't care how his martini is mixed 6. No gadgets 7. No memorable henchmen 8. No Moneypenny 9. No Q, not even R
9/10
A bright restart for Bond
filipemanuelneto5 April 2016
Directed by Martin Campbell and produced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, it has script by Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and Paul Haggis. This is the twenty-first film of the franchise and the first film in the new era of James Bond, embodied by the participation of Daniel Craig, who succeeds Pierce Brosnan in the role of the famous 007. Judi Dench remained in the role of M, Jeffrey Wright resurrects the American spy Felix Leiter, Giancarlo Giannini gives life to Rene Mathis, Eva Green played the bond-girl Vesper and Mads Mikkelsen gave life to the villain, Le Chiffre.

In this film, a new James Bond, recently elevated to the status of 00 agent, will try to catch a gangland banker which helps fund arms dealers and terrorists around the world. For this, he will need to participate in a risky poker game, where the villain will seek to multiply his money.

This is one of the best Bond film's to date and marks the relaunch of the franchise, after the resounding failure of "Die Another Day". Daniel Craig is quite different from any other actor who played the role: hard, extremely violent, more a killer than a gentleman, he manage to updates his character to the new millennium. But this new approach doesn't merely update it, it also gave him more credibility and plausibility. In the public's mind, it's really possible that, if there are spies, they're similar to what Craig shows as Bond. And, like any human, Craig's Bond also fails, makes mistakes and is fallible. It's far from being a hero or a good guy. On the other hand, the villain, played by Mads Mikkelsen, is also credible and is not exaggerated by stereotypes of other villains. Discreet, quiet and, at the same time, cruel and relentless, Le Chiffre is played brilliantly by Mikkelsen, managing to pluck some shivers from our spine. Eva Green was also impeccable in the role of Vesper, a difficult and mysterious bond-girl, which perfectly combines beauty, seduction and mystery, becoming one of the most beautiful and mysterious bond-girls of the franchise. It was also the second woman to make Bond fall in love for real. The script have also fairly good aspects: the main theme, the financing of terrorism, which is very present today, or the chronological resumption of history, which allowed a more accurate approach to Fleming's book and a fresh look to the main character (in a break with previous films, particularly Brosnan's, who totally putted Fleming aside and created new scripts from scratch). Some scenes of this movie also became memorable, such as the climactic scene, in which Bond tries to save his beloved of a Venetian palace that sinks under their feet. The opening sequence of this film is, perhaps, one of the most striking ever. It was created by Daniel Kleinman and stands out for the use of pictures of playing cards, the lack of women's silhouettes (justified by Bond feel true love for Vesper) and "You Know My Name" song, composed and performed by Chris Cornell.
1/10
Bond franchise is dead and dollar business only
kestanafout15 December 2006
Well, no true bond fan can love what it has became. It is not Craig's fault, but the whole thing.

Where has gone the nostalgia associated with the series, the fine humor, the epic/classic soundtrack, the cool pace of romanticism and classic action, etc .... Too much sterile noise, stunts, runs, ... it is the average Hollywood action movie and absolutely nothing else. It could be MI 4 or XXX 3 ... Technology and noise are not movies subjects. Is it made only for Americans and no culture background people ? Boring desolation for 30+ old people out there in the world, better watch Chuk Norris on TV for free. Will we remember this movie in many years, as we do for Moore and Connery ? No.
22 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Very Disappointing
jdmm1014 January 2007
James Bond, a name the is phenomenally well known to so many people. The bond franchise has had its up an downs with regards to the films ranging from the very good ones to the truly awful ones. When I heard that Casino Royale was in production I was very pleased as it was one of the better bond books written by Flemming, I was seriously looking forward to the film, I went to the Cinema, watched it, couldn't believe what I thought so I went to see it again the next day, it was awful!!!!!! I will break down why I think it was awful in to categories.

1) The Story – As bonds go this one had by far the weakest storyline of them all. There was no point to it, there was no ultimate goal for bond, there was no really good bad guy there was just a mish mash of poorly conceived story sewn together into a very flimsy finished product. Martin Cambell obviously had bigger things on his mind when he made this 2) The Stunts- Just pathetic randomly placed awful 'just for the hell of it' stunts. The main stunts include a ridiculas chase for one man which involves jumping up solid walls at least 8ft high, blowing up buildings and killing innocent people to get to one unimportant man. This is a sign of weak directing, stunts for no reason just to show off special effects 3) The bond girl- Oh my lord she is awful! She can't act and is awful looking! I think if you pull a random member of the public off the street they could act better. Just awful, AWFUL!

All in all avoid this film like the plague! Its that bad!
1/10
This Turkey Marks the End of an Era
alazose18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a long time James Bond movie fan, this stinker is a real letdown. Yes, there's plenty of running and acrobatics, a high body count, and collapsing buildings, but that's where the "fun" ends. The ridiculous script with its incomprehensible dialog also subjects us to a boring interminable European poker session, total confusion where people who are supposed to be on your side aren't, and stoic resistance to torture, the latter scene being an overlong and disturbing paean to sadists and masochists.

As for Daniel Craig, he is not nearly as good-looking, suave, witty, charming, debonair, and sophisticated as prior Bonds. However, he is certainly more muscular and athletic - as though that makes up for it. I just don't think the producers understand who Bond is.

Also, must M always be angry and upset with our Mr. Bond? Can't she just once say, "Hey, Jimmy, nice work, you saved the world again."

Some critics have actually praised this turkey, calling it "darker" and "more sinister" than prior Bond films. Talk about understatement. Where is Q with his gadgets, where is Moneypenny with her flirting, where is the charm, appeal, and finesse of prior Bond movies? Alas, gone forever I fear.
9/10
Yes, the real Bond is back; but "Casino Royale" still to be made
eschetic26 November 2006
Yes, Sean Connery remains the definitive James Bond, but Daniel Craig effortlessly (actually, it looks like it took a great DEAL of effort) supplants George Lazenby as the very *very* good second best, and hopefully a great Bond for the next decade or more.

Lazenby had the advantage of being in the movie based on the best of the original Ian Fleming books, ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, and consequently the best movie in the series. Craig has the advantage of being a terrific actor with precisely the rough edges to the visage Fleming first envisioned. He isn't the first blond Bond, Roger Moore had that distinction, and thank God he isn't the pseudo-suave pretty boy which almost sank the series (though he may have the best chiseled body of anyone yet to play the role, and shows more of it). He's simply Bond, James Bond - at the start.

This is, in many ways a new beginning in the same way other decades running series have reinvented themselves. The film makers have gone back to Fleming's first book to reintroduce the character as if he were appearing for the first time today rather than at the height of the Cold War. Keeping most of the essentials of the novel's story (it is sadly amusing to see self professed but possibly illiterate "Bond fanatics" *complain* about the inclusion of the essential elements of the NOVEL "Casino Royale" - the card game, the torture sequence and the resolution of Vesper's story - that give the movie its legitimacy) the film makers have built a "traditional" Bond film thriller around them. The BOOK doesn't really start until half way through the film(!), leaving Casino Royale with the odd distinction as the only Fleming Bond novel filmed THREE times now (the first was with Barry Nelson as Bond in an episode of a TV series called "Climax" - it is available on DVD as a bonus with another film) and yet still not faithfully preserved on film!

As a film thriller in the 44 year old Bond tradition, this new CASINO ROYALE is undeniably thrilling. The opening chase scene is hands down the most exciting in the entire series. Gone are "Q's" increasingly outrageous "toys" which were threatening to overwhelm the characters Fleming had created, but the smart joking dialogue still stands out even if, appropriately, it is reigned in for a character just finding his footing and just having received his "double 0" rating, but that hasn't limited the ingenuity of the screenwriters. The new addition to the saga: how Bond acquired the first of his favored Astin Martins, is superb and utterly fitting for the character.

One may (must) quibble that the commercial decision to replace the elegant "Baccarat" game with its faster turn-around (even if the audience needed to be taught the rules) with a TV familiar "Texas Hold'em," (the card game is essential and central to the story) or that the film goes overboard with the setup for the car crash (the less "spectacular" version in the book would have been far better and more credible) and the unnecessary quotation from TITANIC as a battle is waged in Venice (the travelogue aspect of the film - always a Bond highpoint - is still strong) with a whole building sinking beneath the protagonists (!), but none of that can stop the film from being a wild ride, packed with enough adventurous incident for two Bond films.

It's a fine return and great new start for a superb series. Long may Craig reign.
1/10
WARNING !!! avoid this movie at all cost !!!
Majid-Hamid24 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this is idiot!!!!! 8/10 in IMDb??? forget it..... Daniel Craig is that good in acting as a bond??? no...definitely no!!!! the stupid acting is just incomparable to Connery and Moore.. not even as good as brosnan,Dalton nor lezemby..... he is just plain stupid....

this is not a bond movie works out!!!!! this movie is really boring!!! u know...i mean how the story line goes... come on....juz throw this garbage into the dustbin... go and check out other old James bond movie... WARNING !!!!!!!! avoid this movie at all cost!!!!!

if u are a fan of bond movies... then...look out for gold finger which is definitely the best.. and also from Russia with love and the spy who love me.... check it out !!!!!!!

0/10*****
3/10
Boy, do I miss Lazenby...
chronosaurus30 December 2006
When I started reading the reviews for this movie, many of those focused on... well, James Bond. Or Daniel Craig, for that matter. A lot of divided opinions, on whether he was the worst James Bond since Woody Allen, or the closest to Ian Fleming's original idea. And I'm leaning towards the first man.

But don't mind me wrong... It has nothing to do with the fact that he looks like an Average Joe, that he's blonde or that he doesn't even have an English accent. Its the lack of... "that". If I was talking about football, its the "intangibles" that make a good college player a great prospect. "That" which makes any men in the audience to want to be James Bond right when you leave the theater.

Sean Connery obviously had it. Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan too. Timothy Dalton didn't have it, but his theatrical background kind of balanced his performance. Daniel Craig has nothing of that. Lazenby neither, but at least he decided no to take himself that seriously, and therefore was kind of comical.

A bad James Bond choice is enough to take 5 points away from the score. And why is that I'm giving it a 3 out of 10?...Ah, where to start? Well, Judi Dench as M is one good place... I mean, if this was supposed to be the start of everything, did they miss the little fact that she was promoted to M when Bond was already an agent? Yeah, I can forgive another details, but this... And Le Chiffre... he has to be the most pathetic and less imaginative villain I have seen since Franz Sanchez (althought Elliot Carver is right there). And finally, the details... Bond with a machine gun instead of his Walter PPK, Bond leaving a girl to chase the bad guy, Bond not drinking his Martini... Yeah, maybe little details, but little details have been the cornerstone of this franchise.

My conclusion is that, if this wasn't a Bond movie, MAYBE I wouldn't be so rough and give it a 6 or 7. But when you are talking about the longest saga in the history or movies, you have to be more careful than this.
3/10
bad movie
ashraf_zaky114 December 2006
It is not only that Pierce Brosnan was so much compatible for James Bond character, but also this movie script is very odd, you feel very lost and there is always this question in your head "where did this come from?" and "when did they leave to do that, how they get the time..?" and "is this man with this side?"...some sequences is not logic, and the movie ended with no answers for a lot queries, maybe it is logic for the director, but it must be logic for the audiences too, you don't feel comfortable watching this movie, plus you feel very sorry because Brosnan was so so much perfect for the Bond personality, the only very good thing with this movie is the picturing (the Camera)
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Stellar Beginning for Daniel Craig
Venus-2525 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm old enough to remember the first James Bond films in the theatre and this one can hold its own with them. We are back to a type of script that Ian Fleming would have appreciated: Great action, plenty of suspense, and an excellent, almost-backstory to Bond himself. This is not the cartoonish stuff depending on gadgets and sight gags; it's the real deal. Complete with the fast car, the fabulous European and African locations, and chase scenes that make your feet burn.

There are a few surprises, particularly about M.

Daniel Craig has jumped into the Bond persona with both feet and landed on them. He is capturing both the toughness and the sophistication, the single-mindedness, and the rebellious quality that makes Bond the king of all spies. He's an excellent actor and has the sexy voice and riveting eyes that every woman will remember after leaving the theatre. My only complaint (which may sound trivial to some) is the hair: Bond should have black hair and it should be a little longer. Now if Mr Craig obliges that request, I'd place him right up there with Sir Sean as his rightful heir (so to speak).
3/10
A great Bond film? Maybe if you hate the other twenty
mightywillg-130 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
81 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's start by saying my three star rating of this film is an act of generosity on my part, considering it isn't a bad action film, has some exciting sequences and thrilling moments. But though Bond has been synonymous with action for over forty years, the Bond movies have always been about more than that, namely... fun. This film was almost completely devoid of any fun whatsoever, leaving me with the feeling if you can't get a little fun from a Bond film any more, what the hell kinda world are we living in?! I wasn't as sceptical of Daniel Craig as lots of people seemed to be, knowing he is a fine actor, but his total lack of charisma, humour and charm left me hating his guts. Now people will claim "but this is the closest to Ian Flemings original version of Bond that we've yet seen, and that makes him a good Bond, maybe even the best." But it's always been a clear and obvious fact that the Bond films have never had much in common with Flemming's novels except for the titles, yet it has still become one of the most beloved film franchises of all time; Obviously not beloved enough to stop them taking over forty years of tradition and mythology (the one liners, the gadgets, the over-the-top villains and their over-the-top deaths)and flushing it all down the friggin' toilet! Yes, Die Another Day was a step too far in making things over the top - an invisible car being just one example - but that's no reason to just scrap the whole franchise in terms of what it represents.

Like I said, Bond films SHOULD be about having fun, not leaving the cinema feeling horribly depressed and miserable. A James Bond who stares questioningly at himself in the mirror after killing a bad guy, in a "what am I turning into" kinda way?! Screw that! Bond should kill a guy, make a glib joke, then look for the next scumbag that needs killin'. A Bond who falls in love then cries his eyes out when she dies? Even George Lazenby took the same thing with a little subtle dignity, and they'd just got married! And please, consider this - can you imagine Roger Moore, Connery, or even Dalton, strapped to a chair naked, getting their balls smashed to pieces, screaming their head off like a lunatic? No, because that... is... NOT... FUN!!!

There was a brief glimmer of hope when Craig returns from the near death poisoning experience to the poker table and says "sorry about that, that last hand nearly killed me." I thought, "hooray, James Bond actually made a joke! Only took him a f***ing HOUR!!!!" By the time the end credits start to roll and the Monty Norman theme finally starts to play, it almost seems like a cruel joke of some kind, so far removed is the preceding 140 minutes from what the world has come to recognise as true Bond. Yet, everyone seems to love it, people the world over lapping Casino Royale up like cream from a spy's battered testicles. I guess fun is officially dead, along with the Bond we all grew up with. I certainly shall miss him.
10/10
Daniel Craig Is The Best Bond!
adventure-2190324 December 2019
MGM when casting g for the star role in Casino Royale selected Daniel Craig and what a selection it turned out to be. Daniel Craig is magnificent as 007 James Bond. Craig plays him as a International agent rough and tumble. Watching Daniel Craig is watching a real movie star.

Dont confuse this tremendous action packed film with that of a David Niven light comedy Casino Royale.

Casino Royale turned out to be a worldwide smash hit grossing over a $1 Billion dollars.

I strongly recommend this movie.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I was painfully disappointed by this film. I love Bond - I hated this.
sageaqua17 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I felt this film had a lot of problems. The biggest being the sexism was gone! The fun thing about the Bond films in part is they are not Politically correct. His sexism is one of his personal flaws but it allows us to except him as not to good to be true. And those one liners tended to be funny. Even if they are sexist.

The wonderful intros by all of the other Bond film's including View to a Kill with the great music was also gone. Which killed the film for me - but I stuck it out anyway. The music was so bad in this film that I forgot the Films music during the credits before I walked out of the theater. Now that's bad! I do nothing but study films. But I can honestly say I was trying to remember the credits music and I couldn't. Now they did two things right.

The car almost worked - it was sleek, fast, and had a gadget - which was a life support drawer - give me a break!

The cinematography was solid. But the film is forgettable. I love most of the Bond films but this died faster then View to a Kill which was the worst Bond film to date
1/10
The true 007 concept totally ruined!
andreas-granholm24 November 2006
Complete lack of Bond-sense. Sorry, not completely, but it's quickly mentioned -Aston martin. I was very disappointed, the worst scenario became reality: - A none-sense American action with loads of padding, nothing that will make history. The two last movies attempted to go back to the original feeling of Bond, and succeeded quite well. But this new movie is a scorn to the whole idea of Bond.

My pity goes out to Daniel Craig who didn't stand a chance to show himself worthy of being a good Bond. In this movie no one would be a good Bond, not even Sean Connery.

Humbly With glint in the eye… Andreas
28 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond and diamonds have a commonality, they're both forever
Seller786123 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anyone who doesn't know that should have a goldfinger shoved in their surgically altered goldeneye.

This will be remembered as one of the better Bonds. But the producers always seem to do their best job when Bond is introducing himself a-new. Dr. No, OHMSS, Live and Let Die, The Living Daylights and Goldeneye were all first ventures for a new Bond and those movies are among the best in the franchise' storied history.

Craig is good, no doubt. Hugh Jackman would've done an equally good job IMO. For those bothered by the title sequence and it's song, why? The title sequence was original and yet felt inspired by Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can". Also the song "You Know MY Name." is better than many of the recent song titles to Bond films, but yes it can't match classics like "Nobody Does it Better", "Live and Let Die", "For Your Eyes Only", etc.

Also some people haven't figured out why the bad guys behind the scene were never identified, and are angry about it judging by their posts. I'm pretty sure the reason for that is to get you to come back in May of 2008 and discover that an updated version of Spectre has been resurrected.

Women seem to either love this Bond or hate him. Men seem to be more in favor of this Bond. I can understand why. He isn't better looking than the guys giving him reviews. He is tougher, and certainly a better actor than his former detractors.

This movie was influenced by The Bourne Identity, Batman Begins, Die-Hard, Mission Impossible and Tom Clancy to various degrees. And it's for the better that this is true. The producers had to fight hard with Sony to get this picture made. Sony wanted another DAD fireworks extravaganza. The producers wanted to get back to Ian Fleming's vision. The funny thing is now I'm reading from amateur reviewers how the books are better than the movies, which is completely the opposite of traditional dogma regarding this franchise.

Here's the truth. The books/short stories and the movies both are entertaining and have their brilliant moments, as well as their less-than-brilliant moments.

The good news, this legendary franchise is in no danger of extinction anytime soon.

The bad news, we have to wait until May 2008 to find out the answers to the questions left dangling at the end of Casino Royale.

This much is sure. Right now Ian Fleming is up in Heaven sitting across the gambling table from God, and you can bet your golden Calibri pen, lighter and cigarette case that Fleming's stack of chips is a little higher than the Almighty's
9/10
Discovering bond all over again
vranger8 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If the James Bond franchise had to be rebooted, this was the way to do it.

Daniel Craig gives the character a sense of deadliness not sensed since the Timothy Dalton days. As much as I liked Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, and all delivered good performances, none of them seemed like sudden death with a bad attitude. For a government assassin, such an attitude would be helpful.

Daniel Craig sells that attitude convincingly. From the very start where he coolly terminates a traitor, to the very end where shoots a foe through the leg when it is clear he didn't have to, you know this Bond is cool about the job of dealing death.

The movie itself? I think of it as three movies in one. It starts as an action flick, segues into a cool spy mode with a very relaxed and long lasting poker tournament, and then gets back to the action again.

Although this movie does have scenes that remind you of the book, it is not a close cover of the book in the way the first few Connery movies were.

Althogether quite enjoyable, and closer to the way I perceived Bond as I read the books than most of the other Bond actors managed.
3/10
almost worst Bond ever
drobnyik25 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw this movie the other day on TV and my impression is that the director and the writer didn't know what to do. The action scenes are impressive by Hollywood standards, but that doesn't make something good. Craig is portraying Bond like he was already in all secret services, killed a million opponents, learned every small trick, but this is the beginning of how he became a spy (that is explained for only 2-3 minutes at the beginning and this had to be developed further). Also what is wrong with the director destroying the Aston Martin? It was always a car to admire and packed with a range of interesting goodies. The only purpose it had is to revive Bond. And the Montenegro scenes are ridiculous!!! There are no such modern and fast trains in the country (the average speed is 50 km/h), the city is a copy of some swiss, Bavarian or bohemian town and the beach is shot at some tropical island (there is no golden sand in Montenegro and the color of water is totally different). The plot is rather mixed up, everybody had a motive, but the change is so fast that it makes no sense, and at the end the secret guy comes up to take the prize. The timing for everybody is just perfect! Like some robots with orders. All in all I had to watch it to the end, because there was nothing else on the TV to switch to. 3/10
10/10
Bond Begins
Fluke_Skywalker9 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The silver lining of hitting rock bottom is that it often causes an equal and opposite reaction. Just as the abomination that is Batman & Robin led to the triumph of Batman Begins, the absolute travesty of Die Another Day gave us Casino Royale, still the Gold Standard of James Bond films.

Not just an action movie, Casino Royale is a beautifully constructed and ultimately heartbreaking character study. The love story between Vesper Lynd and Bond is the core of this movie. Not secret volcano lairs and cat stroking villains with plans for world domination. A love story. And so we care when stuff isn't blowing up. But make no mistake, there's plenty of action and it's spectacular.

Casino Royale isn't just a great Bond movie. It's a great movie period.
4/10
Far better than Pierce Brosnan, BUT....
maksimalni4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
... not good enough for me. Mr. Daniel Craig is not bad actor at all, but definitely not someone who can handle with importance of acting as James Bond. Just remember Sean Connery and Rodger Moore, and try to compare them with Daniel Craig. Incomparable. I understand that new era of James Bond must begin but I can't accept that unconvincingly acting. James Bond is not silly little girl crying for his love, it's a strong man which feelings are hidden deep inside of his heart. He is the one who can break heart of any woman. In last half an hour we can see that Bond is fooled by his love but it's not a problem. Real problem is that this part of the movie is really boring and the end is so predictable. Conclusion is that if you want to watch some drama with action elements it's completely fine movie. But if you want to see new Bond, just skip it.
1/10
PAINFUL! Hurts my eyes, Hurts my ears, Hurts my brain!
NaplesMacMan15 May 2007
The arts ALWAYS reflect the society in which they're created; and this abomination is a glaring example of that principle! After twenty minutes of illogical running, chasing, climbing, falling, tumbling, hand-to-hand combat, a killer dose of explosions, crashes, fires, and one not-very-clever sex scene I gave up and turned this abomination off! The producers have used state-of-the-art photography and editing on a visual assault with virtually no intelligent dialogue; and high-tech sound editing on automated music typical of today's dysfunctional society. Ugh! Bond is no longer suave but rather, sinister looking, arrogant, and thug-like in many shots.

I just can't think of ANYTHING enjoyable about this waste of celluloid.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nicely done!
darkmax29 November 2006
I cannot remember watching a better Bond film! Daniel Craig's acting is not as bad as I have envisioned at all! He may not be the best looking one of them lot, but he is very suitable for this role.

One thing though.... A waste of a beautiful Italian actress! Guess her involvement is no longer as important as the previous Bond films where there are always a good Bond girl and a bad villain type.

I like the story and the way they twitched it to reflect the present. whoever it was who made the comment on Singapore morning news about how the story's plot was mixed in the past and present obviously don't know much of the spoken English in the movie, or he wasn't paying attention to any of the conversations at all.

Definitely a very good "restart" of the Bond franchise. Can't wait to see the next installment.....

BTW, I love the way the movie began in black and white for the Columbia Pictures and MGM's "ad"... and of course, that old-style Bond opening with all the poker cards' symbols!
5/10
Decent, not great. A forgettable Bond movie.
bmorearty26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decent, not great. A forgettable Bond movie.

I like the premise: Bond is an agent who has just been granted double-O status (license to kill). But the movie doesn't follow through well enough on the premise.

Plenty of action. But the opening scene doesn't follow well in the tradition of dramatic Bond opening scenes.

Not enough humor. But I did like the scene where Bond was tortured.

Not enough cool gadgets. I know the actor who played Q has passed away, but why not find another actor to show Bond all his gadgets?

I found it hard to care much about either the good guys or the bad guys.
6/10
Way overrated
ddelamaide21 December 2006
Yes the new Bond is tough and gritty and a refreshing change from the pampered pretty boys following Sean Connery. And the film has some of the best cinematography and action sequences that money can buy, why not? But this film is flawed and far from the 7.9 average it is currently boasting.

First flaw is the ridiculous plot. All of the Ian Fleming plots are ridiculous but without the self-mocking irony that infused most of the films -- exemplified by Connery himself -- their ridiculousness becomes annoying. And this film lacks any sense of self-irony. Daniel Craig is good as an action automaton (a la Dolph Lundgren), but his smirk is just a smirk and miles away from Sean Connery's knowing smile. The dialogue in the script is lame and flat, the wit forced.

Second flaw is the love affair between Bond and Eva Green, an actress whose passivity sucks the air off the screen. There is more chemistry in storefront dummies than between Craig and Green, and her role is particularly lame (would not MI-5 vetting have spotted her as a security risk?).

Third major flaw is the brutality of the violence. We are still in a fairy tale here and Bond does not have the justification for real-seeming violence that a Martin Scorsese film has, where there is a real payoff in terms of character and plot.
5/10
It won't kill you to smile
b-o-k-i9 December 2006
007 fans, i watched the film tonight. I am huge 007 fan. Always been. So was my father before me. And my grandpa was a huge fan. So it runes in the family. You can say I would know James Bond when I see one. I haven't seen one tonight. It is not Daniel Craig's fault. The man did the best he could. But, people, he is not James Bond. Not in "Casino Royale" at least. Remember Connery, Moore? Now they played Bond as it was meant to be played. And I happen to like the Timothy Dalton as 007 best. It's just that James Bond disarms you with his smile, he is too cool to be worried about bullets flying towards him. He comes in, with a cool line, kills the bad guy with help of Lady Luck (what else is the 7 in 00 for?), grabs the babe, winks at you and storms out just before the place is blown to bits. It may not be a thriller, there is not a mystery to be solved, there are just a few romantic scenes. You may not call it the Oscar category, but it has been like that for half of century. And people loved it. This is a good movie, but that is just it. It would be a great movie, if the lead character isn't called James Bond, and if he is not addressed as 007. If he were John Smith and was a CIA agent, for example, i would give him praises. And one more fact. All of my friends that are fans of the serial, didn't like it. My friends that didn't like the Bond movies, liked it. It tells you one thing. They looked at "Casino Royale" as just another movie, and it was good. The rest of us, wanted to watch James Bond movie, and we were preparing for that. We didn't get what we expected, and we were disappointed.

One funny thing. I am a Serb. The original character upon who Ian Fleming based James Bond, was also a Serb by the name of Dušan Popov. I am sure a lot of you did not no that fact, not that it has some meaning. He was a spy, and he was working for British Intelligence. And only a Serb would be dumb enough to be so cocky, when a spy has to be someone invisible. But that's not the point. I live in a country called Sebia. It used to be called Serbia & Montenegro. And then those two countries parted. Do you recognize the name Montenegro? It is that beautiful place in the other half of the movie. Except I never saw that country and I used to live in it. My friends, it has all been filmed in Chech Republic. I am sorry to say that you will not see those sites in Montenegro, let alone travel on a train like that. It may be a small matter to you but everyone here laughed when they saw "Montenegro".

Anyway to sum up. It could have been a great movie, if it wasn't James Bond. Next time little more focus on the previous movies, and for gods sake Daniel Craig smile. It won't kill you to smile. Connery smiled, Moore smiled, and they did it often, so can you.
8/10
Bond is Back...And Better than Ever
sullibrandon11 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The James Bond franchise has been needing a good shot in the arm ever since the series began to flag with Tomorrow Never Dies, back in 1997. Suffering from bleak plots, an increasing amount of campiness that defied explanation, boring one-note villains over and over again, it seemed like Bond had breathed his last. Casino Royale could only go two ways: help the Bond franchise or drive the final stake into its heart. Fortunately, Daniel Craig (Bond) and Martin Campbell (the director) have managed to successfully do the former, bravely reworking the Bond formula into something that the public has longed for for such a long time: a movie that does not solely rely on the name for the numbers, but a movie that relies on what audiences crave: quality.

The movie opens with the usual razzle-dazzle display of flashy colors and cleverly put-together graphics, but these defied any previous James Bond film that I have seen. After this we are treated to Daniel Craig inflicting the two kills he must in order to become a 00. We quickly learn that this Bond is not the suave gentleman spy with which we are familiar. This is Bond is real. His bones break. His skin bleeds. He screws up. He gets cocky in situations where it's deadly.

Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond is the highlight of the film. There's no winking at the camera, no sly "I'm so great because they picked me to play Bond" feeling. This is Bond in the real world. This Bond is flesh, bones, and blood. He's not some untouchable superhero, like all the others. And screw the fact that he's blonde. And the complaining Bonde fanboys can shut their mouths because this is the Bond that will save the franchise and give us something which we have been craving: good acting.

Great action is another thing that sells Casino Royale. There are no ridiculously large explosions, no cheesy special effects that smother the story. Towards the beginning there is a rather large explosion that seems unnecessary, but it's understandable. Aside from that, though, the action is very real, very gritty, and very very well done. A scene at the beginning where Bond is chasing someone through the streets of Madagascar is one of the most breathless chase scenes I've experienced in a long while.

The storyline is nothing spectacular, it's nothing revolutionary. What is revolutionary (at least for the Bond franchise) is the way they completely did away with the campiness, the puns, and the sheer disgusting cheese that was stifling the franchise. It was fine when it first came out, but the installments of late have just been disgusting with how much they excessively rely on this formula. As Casino Royale proves, you don't need these things to make a Bond film. What you need is a good Bond, and Craig delivers this. Action flicks have always been a step ahead of Bond because of how they are not chained to a particular formula - Bonds have been able to rely on a solid fan base for success of their films, but fans can only go so far, and Casino Royale has been able to open up the franchise to a much wider fan base - people I've spoken to who normally hate Bond films absolutely love Casino Royale.

There is one thing that really detracted from the experience, and it was the length of the movie. After the film reached a very satisfying conclusion, it seemed to drag on for another twenty minutes or half an hour, ending with a very predictable collapse of a building that reminded me of the useless explosion at the beginning of the film. Were the filmmakers afraid to end the film without a building collapsing? What came before the building collapsing also seemed artificially lengthened - I kept on expecting the closing credits to roll, but then scene after scene kept on being piled on. To the filmmakers credit, the extra scenes do attempt to add a bit of character to Bond, but I thought it just seemed fake and artificial. I don't want to give anything away, but I thought the scenes didn't fit with the Bond we had seen before.It's too bad the filmmakers felt like these extra twenty minutes were necessary, because if this fat had been trimmed, this would almost have been a perfectly streamlined adventure. As it is, it just bogs down the picture with forced sentimentality that didn't help at all.

Casino Royale is quality film-making in every sense of the word. It is a refreshing departure from the stifling and overbearing Bond formula, Daniel Craig's performance is nearly Oscar-worthy, and it's just so good. This is the shot of the adrenaline we have been waiting for.
2/10
resisted all Bond's after Tomorrow Never Dies and this is why
chilla-black10 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
since TND, James Bond films have not contained the classic formula of old.

They simply resemble Die Hard in a tuxedo, with James Bond pulling off some of the most superhuman feats imaginable. I have attempted to watch the most recent instalments but the directing has veered away from slick and intelligent to action, intended to snare a whole new generation of new jacks.

This movie has the most absurd chase ever, one man clambering over cranes, walls setting off bombs and assassinating a foreign diplomat in front of his private army.

Judy Dench is by far the worst person to portray M.

Ill stick with the first 20. thanks.
10/10
Bond, but better than ever.
stretchfoofight27 January 2019
Wow....Wow. The only reaction I could muster after this film. This is by far and away the best Bond film to date. This film is gritty, it's action packed and it's finally removed all of the crazy stupid gadgets and improbable stunts.

Whilst it's fair to say Daniel Craig wasn't everyone's first pick as Bond, he certainly won't have any critics after this.

The film has a genuine storyline, real world issues and dilemmas to navigate, the fight scenes are intense and bloody, Bond gets hit, he bleeds he bruises, he props himself up with booze and blinding determination.

Eva Green is stunning, both in her acting skills and her visual persona. A women who challenges Bond, pushes him and forces the human inside to come to the surface.

This film is fast paced, action packed, has a depth and direction seldom seen with these sorts of films and it has you yearning for more.

A truely great film that has it all. I'll say it again. WOW!
1/10
James Bond, Not even close
jerryfr404 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
55 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie may have been alright for an action movie but it did not even come close to any of it's predecessors. The movie lacked the action, gadgetry, and comedy which has been the trademark of Bond. Thru out this movie Bond makes stupid mistakes and people die because of them. The opening scene was quite good but that was the high point of the movie. It fails to ever achieve that height again. Several times near the end you are led to believe your torture is over only to have it drug out even further. While there are twists the trademark action scenes are nearly non existent. One in the beginning and one near the end. If you are a Bond fan from the days of Connery and Moore you will be terribly disappointed. If you have never seen a Bond movie you may be satisfied with this effort.
2/10
The best hyped film ever
danieldevine9228 April 2007
O.K. at first i was skeptical i thought that a new bond wouldn't be bad but i was wrong this one was. What was with the blond pretty boy standing in the screen instead of the cool slick 007 we grew up with replaced along wit everything good about the James Bond Francise.

Lets get started with the evil villain in the movie being a bank for terrorists oww scary like cum on the old villain were plotting to destroy the world that was a story you could get interested in but no the villain has to play cards oooowwwwwww thats diabolical. I went in expecting this brilliant new bond film but what i got was a bunch off rich people playing poker together wow the amount of action(sarcastically). I thought after they druged him he would come back in a shoot up the place but no he went and changed his clothes and continued to play again.

Now what about the gadgets where are they there gone. The only thing left was was the amount of Sony ericson phones and the Sony computers. Cummon did Sony make this movie and hype it just so the could sell there products. Every bit of technology in it was Sony Sony Sony.

To finish my review when i was going to see this movie i thought it would be some spectacular new movie with twists and turns at every corner but i was horribly mistaken. BAD MOVIE. The only decent bond character in it was Judi Dench in my opinion.
10/10
The best Bond movie EVER!!!!
ajaws4ever16 November 2006
Wow! OMG!! This is the best Bond movie that has ever been...and ever will be.

This movie stars Daniel Craig (Munich, Archangel), Eva Green (Kingdom of Heaven), Mads Mikkelsen (Pusher, Pusher II), Judi Dench (Chronicles of Riddick, Chocolat), and Jeffrey Wright (Syriana, Lady in the Water).

Whenever I hear or think of James Bond, or 007, I think of Casino Royale (2006). This movie is amazing! It really brings a message that evil never overpowers good.

The action is amazing! The stunts are awesome and breathtaking! And the lovely sex scenes are sexy, too! The dialogue is just entertaining and fun to listen to! The movie can really drag on when there are no action scenes involved, but it's still really entertaining to listen.

Daniel Craig gives an Oscar-Caliber performance! He is absolutely amazing! The acting, the action, and the stunts! All tyte! He really helps make the movie become a whip-lashing roller coaster ride! And it is. Casino Royale (2006) really is a roller coaster ride.

The special effects are totally awesome. They look so realistic--since most of them were computerized. But the explosions and the construction site scene and the crane fight scene were absolutely fantastic! The torture scene was somewhat stomach-churning, but that's what makes Bond, Bond!

MINOR SPOILER BELOW! DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO! BUT YOU MAY READ AFTER IT SAYS, "MINOR SPOILER ENDS"

The torture scene is very stomach-churning. I mean, what man would want to have his genitals (penis) beaten with a carpet beater? Not me.

MINOR SPOILER ENDS***

See Casino Royale (2006). You WILL NOT be disappointed!!

Violence/Gore: 8/10, Sex/Nudity: 5/10, Profanity: 4/10, Drugs/Alcohol: 5/10

My MPAA rating: PG-13: Intense Sequences of Violent Action, A Disturbing Scene of Torture, Sexual Content, Nudity, and Some Language.

My Canadian rating: 14A: Violent Scenes, Frightening Scene
1/10
Best "Bond" in years...worst Bond script/story in years.
tygerhardt14 December 2006
I've been a Bond fan ever since I was a kid...I've seen them all from Sean Connery on...but let's be honest, the last few installments have been pretty hit or miss, so I was thrilled to hear so many good reviews of this new Bond film.

While the new guy is clearly the best Bond in years...decades even, the story and the script were simply terrible. Yes, there were some great action scenes, but they weren't enough to carry the obtuse, poorly written story and that is truly a shame. Had someone bothered to realize that it takes more than simply putting a new face on Bond and losing the more cartoonish elements of previous Bond films to make a decent picture, this could have possibly been the best Bond film in the history of the series. Unfortunately for the cinema going public, this is not the case. Truly tragic.

Oh...and the new Bond villain is a pants wetting uber wuss. Trut so pure.

This and the new Rocky film will probably be icing on the crap cake that has been the 2006 movie season...which, aside from a few good documentaries and a couple of decent offerings, was one of the worst years in film history.
3/10
James Bond still not back since "A View to a kill"
simongroen29 November 2006
Writers of the "Casino Royal" scenario, please, please understand: James Bond is LIGHT. James Bond is action+fantasy+humor. James Bond is NOT drama, quasi psychological issues, relationships. The movie started to nerve me at the moment Bond and his girl where sitting under the shower being seriously. The ending was also terrible. Please, writers of the scenario, think about this: don't be afraid of clichés. don't be afraid of keeping the essential Bond elements: superficial dealing with women is crucial for James Bond. More of Bond's private life we can just guess/ fantasy about as the audience. We don't want to hear his feelings outspoken. And then where is the beginning? James Bond in his circle, blood coming down, etc. Don't change James Bond elements that TOTALLY don't need to change. I did like the actors and the acting, and I liked some action and beautiful houses and cars. But for the rest: SHAME!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Motherfucking good movie.
katsinspace-347-38680019 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig assumes the paper of James Bond, to set out on the character's very first 007 mission. James Bond has earned his "00" status by masterfully executing a pair of outstanding professional assassinations. Now assigned the task of traveling to Madagascar to spy on notorious terrorist Mollaka for his maiden voyage as a 007 agent, Bond boldly goes against MI6 policy to launch an independent investigation that finds him traversing the Bahamas in search of Mollaka's notoriously elusive terror cell. Subsequently led into the company of the mysterious Dimitrios and his beautiful girlfriend, Solange, Bond soon realizes that he is closer than ever to locating well-guarded terrorist financier Le Chiffre, the man who has personally bankrolled some of the most prevalent terrorist organizations on the planet. When Bond realize that Le Chiffre is planning to partake in an upcoming high-stakes poker game to be played at Montenegro's Le Casino Royale and use the winnings to establish his financial grip on the globe, M assigns an agent called Vesper and give her the task of watching over Bond as he plays against Le Chiffre in a covert attempt to destroy the world's most well-established monetary stronghold once and for all. The movie is amazing, and strongly recommended for those who wants to see very good scenes of action and a gripping story.
8/10
Bourne-again Bond
pmtelefon28 February 2020
I'm a big James Bond fan. I remember leaving the theater (Westbury, NY) after watching "Casino Royale" and being very excited about the future of Bond films. I had a great time watching this movie. Over the years and after many viewings the bloom has come off the rose a little bit. I am a Bond purist but I do recognize that the movies need to evolve some in order to remain fresh and inviting to new audiences. They can't be making new 007 adventures only for 56 year old men (like me). I understand all of that. It's just that producer Barbara Broccoli should have more confidence in her property. She shouldn't try to imitate Bond's imitators. That said, "Casino Royale" is a very exciting movie. It does skip a beat here and there but overall it is quite an enjoyable ride. Dishonorable mention: the always annoying Judi Dench.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Without the fantasy James Bond is dead.
wireflydavid15 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I said I would watch Casino Royale if it got great reviews. Well it did and I did.

What a waste.

Casino Royale is not the best Bond movie by any stretch of the imagination. A few reviews said you have to forget it is a Bond movie to enjoy it. Well if it is not a Bond movie then it wasn't a good movie either.

Seriously the plot is convoluted. Without the fantasy Bond operated under it can't work. We are supposed to believe playing cards, very boring by the way, is the solution to this sniveling terrorist accountant. Why not kill him? Why risk the chance he'll finance these dangerous African terrorist? I laughed when the CIA made the deal to take him. If the CIA wanted him then, to our shame, they would have picked him up off the street and waterborded him. And if Le Chiffre is a math genius why not a real genius scheme and a plan to go with it.

I didn't think Daniel Craig had the special bond feeling, well he doesn't. In a tux he sticks out like a sore thumb. It stretched creditability when Vesper said he was from Oxford. No way does this thickheaded dull agent ever give the slightest sign of intelligence. Shutter to think about his university days. Daniel Craig would be at home as one of the guys from the football team, as James Bond he is uncomfortable and it shows

Almost to the ridiculous real and gritty were over done. I know some people are swearing Daniel Craig is Fleming's Bond. He's not. Not even close. They concentrated too much on the ugly nature briefly described by Fleming and missed the real flavor of the Bond of the Books, who by the way is described many times as being like a movie star -good looking.

Vesper is forgettable. Eva Green has much better performances in other movies. Le Chiffre is the weakest villain of all time. The Le Chiffre of the Book was interesting with a equally fantastic history. Mads Mikkelsen was miscast, Lambert Wilson would have been a much better choice.

Felix Leiter was ignored as character. In the Book there was a meaningful setup for the story.

Daniel Craig was not interesting as Bond. Not once inhabiting the role. They tried to make it a character driven movie, which certainly isn't what Fleming wanted, and it didn't work here. Daniel Craig's performance was too aware of itself, when there was moment were we were supposed to believe that Daniel Craig's bond experience something it didn't work it felt like Daniel Craig was the only on screen with no sign of James Bond. It all came down to Daniel's interpretation of Bond. He wasn't comfortable with Bond so it was change so he could work his way into it. Sadly he doesn't fit, the character he makes is alien to Bond.

The fun, the glamour, the gadgets, the girls, the charm are all gone. Left is an empty husk and a depressing movie with no redeeming qualities.
10/10
A perfectly structured film that hits even harder 15 years later
jtindahouse12 November 2021
I don't think I fully appreciated 'Casino Royale' the first time I saw it. I knew it was a re-booted Bond with far darker tones and a much more serious edge. And I knew it was a seriously impressive movie without quite realising just how layered it was. Now, having watched the full allotment of Daniel Craig Bond films I can go back and watch this movie and appreciate just what a masterpiece it was.

I think the thing that held me back most from entirely loving this film on first viewing was the poker scenes. I almost always hate poker scenes in movies. They are so over-dramatised and unrealistic that it takes away from the promotion of the game for me. Bond just having a miracle hand in a miracle spot isn't anywhere near as interesting as Bond calling down a bluff for all the chips with King high would be, but not enough audience members would be able to appreciate that, and so I understand how they get stuck in a trap.

It didn't bother me as much this time around because I don't think I'd realised before just how little poker there actually is. There are only a very small amount of hands we actually get to see and each one serves a very important purpose, not just to the game, but to the plot of the movie as well.

I've heard this movie described as the "perfect three act film", and it really is. The opening third of the film is pure Bond with all the set-up and action scenes taking place at break-neck speed. Then the second act with the poker is far more subdued (while still having some moments of immense tension). But this gives the character's of Bond and Vesper a chance to breathe and show us what they are about. And that middle sequence is why the final sequence hits so hard. Once the twist is revealed it really hits you, and that second act is the reason why.

I could go on for a long time about why this movie was so good. I just had a few thoughts I wanted to put out there and I've done it now so I'll leave it at that. If you were like me and watched 'Casino Royale' when it first came out and liked it without loving it, I would implore you to go back now after having seen the full series and watch it again. It is a marvelous film. 10/10.
9/10
Bond Reborn In Another Suit
billion_mucks28 November 2007
If you are a fan of the Bond Movies, then you should watch this immediately to put points straight. Bond is Reborn in "Casino Royale" cutting loose of his British, sophisticated roots and entering a new terrain, a lot more raw and a lot more down to earth with him job.

¿What Do I mean with this? Bond not only wears the impeccable suits and rides the luxury, stupendous cars. He takes his job to the edge, being the "enfant terrible" of the agency, able to do the nasty killings and having a conceptual moral difficulty (which he hides) to attempt them. Let me also say this Bond also dives a lot more deeper in the psychological path: as in poker, viewer must look for the tells (sing on poker that deveals the nature of the player) of the story and understand the mind of double O-Seven and promptly construct a psychological profile of his that is well revised and greatly scripted.

The Essence of Bond is quite yet maintained: people walk in the cleanest and most expensive Armanis, drink a glass of scotch while riding the first class cabins or going at high speeds with their Aston Martins or their Jaguars. The leather, the continuous use of white and green coloration and the lavishness surrounding the settings (the fantastic poker tables you want to submerge into, the antique, comfy and beautifully ornate hotels) make the movie a great visual adventure, and of course, expect fantastic chases, seeming unreliable but impressive, great liners, comedy moments, and a good love story that gives Bond the human flare that he needs. The cast is not packed with stars, and this point is needed to highlight: the lack of starstrucking make the experience a lot more challenging to the actors and their debuts in the series make them a lot more refreshing and interesting. I liked Daniel Craig, whose cold features give Bond the relinquishing, armored aspect and personality Bond needs yet he can cope with the love scenes and make an acceptable agent.

Get your Mind off Connery, Brosnan, Moore. Craig is a different style: let's say, more American.

Bond is quick on fast logic and cool reactions, on fine charm a little rougher. He is shown with his mistakes, he is humiliated and overwhelmed, his actions are punished and looked pitiable. This ambiguity makes Bond a lot more attractive to inspect. Mads Mikkelsen makes a great impact, Judi Dench puts on her heavy experience and Eva Green...well, she is pretty and simulates emotions quite fine, but still simulates them.

The Bond Franchise is reborn: Martin Campbell gives it a twist and makes it a lot more darker, rougher, passionate.

James is asked at one moment if he wants his martini shaked or stirred:

-Do I look like I give a damn- he responds.

So figure how they revalue Fleming's hero into more human and a less unreachable figure. The movie also strikes at more levels than usual. If you at least are not impressed, I'll say this: it has breathtaking paradises, fine women and poker.
8/10
Will Craig grow into role?
Hulk00717 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the movie the Bond franchise has been needing since an over-matched George Lazenby and a slightly off-kilter script ruined the promising On Her Majesty's Secret Service. However, I have to wonder: is Daniel Craig the Bond this movie needed? After seeing the film just once, I would have to regretfully say, "not quite." It's not that Craig is a terrible Bond - indeed, I found myself comparing him throughout the film to Connery and Dalton - but I'm just not sold on the way he delivers his lines; he seemed flat and not quite able to handle the one-liners (a notable exception being the torture scene, where a bound and bloodied Craig still manages to get the best of his captor with a quick wit). Craig looks thuggish and his icy blue eyes are the most menacing pair ever owned by a 007; he moves beautifully and his fight scenes are violent beyond anything a previous Bond could have pulled off, including Connery and even the physically imposing Lazenby. All well and good, but he hardly exudes the sense of dangerous magnetism radiated by Connery, Dalton or, to a lesser extent, Pierce Brosnan. He does, however, make Roger Moore look like a lecherous stiff (or rather, Roger Moore makes Roger Moore look like a lecherous stiff).

Craig aside, this is the best Bond movie since Goldfinger set the high water mark 22 years ago. The plot works magnificently well - taking 007 and pushing the reset button was a bloody brilliant move by the producers. The action is superb, but complements the plot, rather than distracting from it, as in the disastrous Die Another Day. The tension is quite real in everything from a scene where a terrorist tries to blow up an airplane (sure to evoke a sense of 9/11 angst; M even references 9/11 later in the film) to the life-and-death stakes poker game at Casino Royale.

Judi Dench is back as M, and thank God. Her scenes with Bond, particularly when he breaks into her apartment, absolutely bristle with a crackling chemistry between her and Craig. Eva Green is positively delightful as the complex Vesper Lynde - it's no wonder Bond is ready to hang up his double-O status for this woman, she's that intoxicatingly lovable, not to mention also superbly respectable, a trait often lacking in past Bond girls. Green is more than Craig's match in this film, and it is she who provides an emotional core that draws the film into a coherent, dramatic whole. Mads Mikkelsen is coldly menacing as the main villain, terrorist financier Le Chiffre, though a bit underutilized in this film, as is the solid but subdued Jeffrey Wright, Bond's CIA ally, Felix Leiter (who inexplicably disappears from the film around the time of Bond's abduction). Giancarlo Giannini is satisfyingly slimy as a questionable Bond ally.

The film left me wanting more. When Craig ends the film with the signature "Bond, James Bond," I wanted very badly to believe him; with practice, perhaps he'll improve his screen presence and diction to Dalton-like levels, even if he can't quite reach Connery (who can?). And though it's irrelevant at this point, I can't help wondering what this film would have been like had it starred Cliven Owen (there, I said it!) an actor who exudes the same cornered-animal sense of danger as Craig, but does so in a more imposing wrapper. Owen would have owned this film; Craig merely inhabits it. When Craig and Green entered a room together, all eyes were on her; since when does James Bond get shown up by his leading lady? I have to wonder if there's a reason Craig has mostly been cast in supporting roles prior to this film. Can he handle being a leading man among leading men, as I think Owen could? If Craig is serious about growing into this role, and I have high hopes that he will, he'll do some serious thinking about Jack Nicholson's character's creed in The Departed: "I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me."

To sum up, Craig leaves a little something to be desired, but this is still the best Bond outing in years, and probably rates second only to Goldfinger and From Russia With Love. Look for Bond 22 to be even better, provided Craig matures (a solid bet) and if the producers have the good sense to maintain the direction of this film (and that's a big if; after all, they did follow up the very solid The Spy Who Loved Me with the wince-inducing Moonraker). 8/10 stars.
1/10
7.9 my a**e
jjlwilliams14 April 2007
Never in a million years is this film as great as you're all making out! This film is different (NOT BETTER) than the other bond films and so has all the tired, boring sequences that you are just waiting for the 'hero' to sidestep so you can go and do something more interesting instead. There is a 'twist' (two in fact) and if you're over the age of ten i'm sure you'll get them within the first thirty minutes (although it feels a bit longer). I'm totally fed up...tell me, are you all being paid to give this film a high rating or are you just so in love with bond that you will give any film of this nature a thumbs up? Don't bother with this film, a waste of time and money (mine, yours and theirs).
46 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A cracker
r96sk27 March 2020
This is a cracker. It is easy to see that 'Casino Royale' is a reboot of the series, as it feels fresher whilst still keeping the charm of 007.

It isn't quite my favourite Bond, 'The Man with the Golden Gun' and 'From Russia with Love' (currently) surpass it, but Daniel Craig's debut is one to be proud of. He is excellent in the role.

Mads Mikkelsen makes for a grand villain, certainly one to be remembered. Eva Green brings a good dynamic to Bond's female lead, while it was pleasing to see Jeffrey Wright; I always enjoy watching him.

The plot is entertaining, I was thoroughly locked in during the poker scenes in particular. With that noted, the ending to this film is what marks it down for me. It concludes the main premise nicely, but the other parts felt like an add-on - which are finished a bit too sharpish.

That is my only negative, as the rest is very good. I also appreciate how worldwide it all feels too... Bond is at its best when it shows off the world.
7/10
First time seeing any James Bond movie
Morejambo5425 June 2021
Yeah it was good. I think I've seen a lot of it before through other movies but I guess at the time of its release it might have been pretty original which I understand. The action is very good and looks incredibly real which is quite scary and makes it even more tense than it should be. There are some bits of action that are incredibly exaggerated which made me laugh but it's understandable for a high budget movie. The music is excellent but quite loud, sometimes I actually struggled to hear the dialogue because of how loud it was this added to my confusion with some of the plot. The plot itself is pretty good also, I personally don't think it's anything spectacular but it does the job and has some twists here and there that kind of feel flat for me but where still achieved well. The characters are kinda dull, I mean James Bond himself is supposed to be a secret which is fine and could work well but they maybe could have added some development to his character. Now this review has been very critical but in honesty I did actually enjoy the movie soooo 7/10.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worst Bond film in recent memory
ORGaSMOTRON26 January 2007
What a mess! I'll try and make this brief. Die Another Day was hardly "Citizen Kane". It was overblown and a bit silly, but it worked. It was cool, fun and most importantly it was Bond. Casino Royale however is not. Yes, the character is called James Bond, but everything is gone. Firstly, Craig doesn't have Bond's look, his head is the wrong shape and his hair is blonde! Where is Miss Moneypenny? The gadgets? John Cleese's character from the previous Bond outings? It just isn't Bond anymore! What I hate is how the Director seems to have gone off on his own tangent, said "bugger you" to all the previous movies and done his own thing the complete wrong way. If this is a prequel, why is it set in modern day? Why is Judi Dench still M? The Director seems to want to start the series again and I for one am not down with that arrogant decision. "Shaken or stirred? Does it look like I bloody care?!" This is practically spitting on James Bond's previous image. Combine all these failures with the fact that James Bond has the wit of a 15 year old (saying tactless things like "your gonna die while scratching my balls"), two particularly plain female leads, a poor and bland opening theme and ridiculous pacing for an action film and you end up with a very forgettable and dislikeable movie indeed. I'll give it a 3 because it was junk except for the excellent chase at the beginning.
10/10
Different from the others.......and AWESOME!
redfearnb27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow. WOW. WOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!!!

This was certainly a departure from the earlier 20 bond films, but man did I love it. My fiancée said that it was quite violent and bloody to her, but I did not find it graphic personally. The plot is simple, yet complex. The twists and turns I expected, but could not see coming, so I was never bored. The explosions and chases and everything were wonderful. There was only one scene that I remember where the CGI bothered me, and it was a background on a yacht. I would certainly recommend, even return to view this movie myself, 100 times. It was just absolutely wonderful and so different that I could not get enough of it. I look forward to any other movies that follow this "return to the books" feeling of James Bond.

I almost never give a movie a 10 out of 10 rating, but I was so surprised to delight that I have to give this movie the highest rating. If you haven't seen it, you better leave your house right now and go wait for a showing to start.
7/10
Ubiquitous British Agent takes on Albanian terrorist & torturer....in a card game!
Joshua_Goldstein31 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I always find it hard to review a 'new' Bond since their first movie hasn't given you enough time to get use to the fact that this will be the Bond for the next few films. But in any case I did not hold it against Daniel Craig.

(spoilers here) The film is based upon a plot where an Albanian terrorist "LeChine" attempts to blow up a new jetliner while simultaneously shorting said company's stock. The Saudis and Albanians did this in REAL life during the 911 attacks in New York. Needless to say Bond foils the plot and needs to confront this criminal in a casino in a high stacks card game. Compared to other Bond flicks this movie isn't going to break any new ground. It is also important to note that there is one particularly gruesome torture scene where the LeChine uses the Albanian testicle torture method (so commonly used in WWII by them with their alliance with the Nazis). I thought that scene was a step further than the attempted tortures of Bond by the bad guys in previous films.

Overall though only an average Bond flick
8/10
best Bond movie in decades
toddbradley23 November 2006
If you knew my wife, you would understand why this is the most telling review of this film: When we walked out of the theater, she turned to me and said, "I want to own this one!" What you probably don't know is that I'd spent the preceding 2 or 3 weeks trying to explain to her that not all Bond movies are a string of crappy sexist jokes and goofy gadgets. I'm glad this film supported my point, because if it had featured an invisible car, a one-liner about James being a "cunning linguist", or a character named Pussy, she might never have believed my point that there is really nothing fundamentally flawed about the franchise.

Anyhow, long story short: This is the first Bond movie in about 20 years where I've left the theater wanting to see it again.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't Believe The The Compliments..
marcus-boy-196910 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
31 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
hello to everyone, i have to say that i am so what shocked by many posts here. posts that give compliments to an unworthy movie, to the worse and there shouldn't be any doubt about it cause it is the worse bond movie ever made. yes there are many decent people too, people that have written the truth! and the truth is that this movie wasn't good, when i say wasn't good i am being very but very polite.

just to explain myself a bit: when i go to see a bond movie or watch it on TV,DVD, with friends, family, we all said it not once that its a lovely fantasy, bond movies are a fantasy you'll can escape to for a couple of hours, a fantasy that include world crazy villains, countless beautiful and sexy women, high quality good that involve the rich and famous, high technology displays that seem impossible but during these 2 hours you'll just sit, relax and enjoy all the mention above, just enter a world of fantasy which was made first in 1962 and was made rather well till now, but thats it.

this movie isn't a fantasy, its lacks each and everything you expect in a James bond movie fantasy, there are no megalomanic villains (just few thief's instead), no beautiful and sexy women (even the heroin is pretty but you'll can see many like her at every shopping center), nothing unique about the heroin, just plane pretty and that it and you'll wont remember later how she looked like. no high quality good (well there was a lovely aston martin that they crashed after 15 annoying and pointless seconds), and no high technology gadgets, this was most shocking i have to say, only thing you saw all through movie was Cel Phones! Tons Of Them! In Every Colour And Shape! really but really annoying.

so no style, no scary villains, no beautiful women you'll will remember, and no gadgets what so ever.

ask yourselfs, is this a bond movie? you'll are pay to see a bond movie and get a cheap action movie, which by the way you'll can find many like in the cinemas even nowdays which are much better! this movie is also full with violence, no brains, bond is displayed almost without any of the famous witty thinking and cleverness we expect from him. talking about bond, d. craig, im sorry to say just doesn't have what it takes, mark my words if he continues like this he wont survive till the third movie, he is just to stiff, no sense of homour, no charm at all and barely any expressions in his face beside a serious one during the entire movie.

one thing we can learn from this movie, if in your country the critics gave it good scores, learn not to believe them! in my country some gave it fine rates some wrote its disappointing, and i have to say that those that wrote that its fine, i will never be reading any more of their critics cause this movie is just so bad, it should have been impossible to go wrong with the critics of this one. (by the way this is the opinion of mine, family members and few friends).
9/10
Bond - reimagined!
anifanmc19 November 2008
Being a Bond fanatic, I was apprehensive when Daniel Craig was picked for the role of the iconic titular spy, particularly when I learned that he'd be portraying the origin story of the famed 007 (or at least his first mission as a double-O agent). Blond hair was bad enough, but the fact that he was neither suave nor charming seemed to work against him. Within the first half an hour of Casino Royale, I was proved wrong on all accounts.

The story is an adaptation of Ian Fleming's first novel of the same name, and the plot is essentially the same. Of course, it's updated to the modern day, with the enemies being terrorists and launderers instead of Russians and SMERSH. In this one, an unnamed organization (which arises later on in Quantum of Solace, but of course, I will not spoil that) takes money from a terrorist in Africa, keeps it as a banker, and then uses it behind the banker's back to gamble it (at the cost of lives and legal property). Then, when they are foiled by Bond and lose all of the money, they must win it back in a poker tournament. Le Chiffre, the man behind the money, must play James Bond.

The plot is the only real bit of contention I had with the film. It seems far too simple for a true Bond film, and of course, it ends up being such. For that reason the producers added in extra fight scenes, extra twists, and of course, gave Bond a motive beyond just his duty to MI6 to complete the assignment at hand. Along with this is the handy fact that Bond's abilities are almost completely physical - no fancy gadgets, no grappling hooks from watches or hidden laser pens, no knives hidden in the boots, just pure physical ability. He's effectively become the Jason Bourne of spies, but even MORE powerful.

His personality has also gone a makeover. Sean Connery's Bond was known for being a womanizing, drinking, smoking and charming man, and women were of no concern to him. In Roger Moore's era, Bond became a much more romantic person, more subtle and clever, and in Dalton's era he became angry, emotional, and vengeful. Brosnan averaged the three predecessors and created a Bond who couldn't always control his emotions, but got the job done; someone who was capable of relying on his charm to get him done, but showing true concern for the women he saved or fought along with. The oft quoted "It's what keeps me alive" comment from GoldenEye summarizes this quite succinctly.

Daniel Craig's Bond breaks with this for a few obvious reasons. He is Bond before he becomes the super-spy. He's just been newly minted a double-O, and thus abuses his power. He falls in love quickly (although he seems to have a preference for married women), and clings to that love with a tenderness that I would not have expected of Craig, one that manifests outwardly as hard and unyielding but gives way to real care and comfort when his barriers melt. I learned with this film not to have any preconceptions with well-established characters. Vesper Lynd is perhaps the real hero of this, giving him a romantic interest and thus a reason to the film's rhyme. She stirs Bond in a way that we haven't seen since Tracy Bond was gunned down by SPECTRE.

Le Chiffre is another weak point, but not by much. His character is well developed, but his villainy seems relatively unnoticed since he does not ever encounter Bond in a fair confrontation. He tortures him - that too, brutally (I cringed as did the entire male population of the theater) - but he never quite confronts him as an equal. Still, he provides a good foil for Bond to develop on. Judi Dench as M is much colder, hardliner, and far more willing to take drastic courses of action than her previous incarnation as a separate M with Pierce Brosnan. This gives her character far more room to develop, however, and creates a unique relationship with Bond that we don't necessarily see in most other films.

CR is a promising film, and despite the relative mediocrity of its sequel, it provided a completely new paradigm for Bond, both physically and mentally. Aesthetically, it may be the greatest accomplishment yet for an old, classic film series.
1/10
Does not follow the traditional formula-Timeline is out of line.
eltonpa1593418 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
43 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was the worst movie in the Bond collection. It is hard to follow. If it is as stated a "prequel" then why is "M" Judi Dench? Not that she was ever any good in that role. But the time line is all wrong because of her. The "M" should have been a man and all the autos should have been of the 60's era. Bond is invincible; except in this awful movie. I am taking my DVD back and trading it for something much better like "The Attack of the Killer Bees" or "Bonzo goes Ape." To the producers and owners of the Bond Series KNOW THIS: I will not buy another non formula Bond Picture. Get back to the Roger Moore formulas and fast because you are not smart enough to make a better Bond picture.This movie was too hard to follow, had the wrong items for the time line, and was very poorly thought out.
1/10
Wow... that sure did suck
brettsmolski13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
182 out of 385 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, as a fan of earlier 007 movies I was hoping for a restoration of the standard that was set with Sean and Roger. Not only was casino rolaye based off an original Ian Fleming story, but reviews gave praise to the storyline and Daniel Craig portrayal of Bond, and so I went into the movie theatre with high expectations.

These expectations where soon pretty much crushed.

Here are the following things I disliked about the movie:

Daniel Craig's performance did not do 007 justice. He was dull, unwitty, and had absolutely no charisma for such a role.

Craig and Greens chemistry was horrible and the plot was disjointed and did not have the flow of some of the better Bond films. No gadgets, no Q, no decent action sequences.

Shameful product placement. Every agent, terrorist, contact and bond villain whipped out there sony ericsson mobile every chance they got, not to mention several sony vaio laptops and sony blueray disc players. I was actually shocked to see that M was pawning Bond on need for speed carbon on a PS3. Seriously though, they must of shown every model phone they have they even had my K700i (which is probably the worst piece of technology I have ever bought by the way). There was also a crack about what type of watch Bond wears:

BOND: "Did you know that I'm a gaybo?" VESPER: "Really, but the thing I wanted to know is the brand of your watch?" BOND: "OMEGA!!!" Bond turns and smiles at the camera.

Another issue I had with this movie was the amount of screen time Daniel Craig was either nude or partially nude, this was not good as I had lunch just before I watched this. Also, call me old fashioned, but I really don't need to see 007 stripped naked and whipped in the nuts repetitively... I'm just funny like that.

Sooooo, there it is. Please don't go see this movie or you will be the one who cries blood.
2/10
the killing of a legend
summerisle27 November 2006
Okay, I won't say anything more about the film, almost everything has been said by others. Some like it, some hate it. Being a fan of the classic bond films, I hated it. I really wanted to give the film a chance, but it was much worse than I expected. It even spoils its good action sequences because it's so damned pretentious. It's just your usual, hyped mainstream action movie, and even without the number 007 tagged on it I wouldn't have liked it. They should have made this film without spoiling the 'trademark name' "James Bond 007".

But okay, times are changing and after 40 years and 20 (official) films the 'real' James Bond is no longer with us. It's that simple! Even the parody "Casino Royale" (1967) and Connery's comeback "Never Say Never Again" (1983) were more within the spirit of a James Bond movie, than this one. Some might say that this film is more faithful to the Bond of Ian Fleming's novels, but hey - not the novels made the name James Bond that big, but the films!

It's a real pity, because this isn't just one film of the series I don't like, but it marks the end of an era: there will be no 'real' bond films anymore in the future... And I have absolutely no interest to see what's coming after this one.
6/10
OK, could have been cut down.
rocknrelics4 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Overall decent, but they could have cut the card game scenes down quite a bit, unless you're into poker they were sooooo boring and didn't add anything to the story for the most part. Beautiful locations helped it quite a bit.
6/10
The mobile phone bond
enda_od11 December 2006
There was the one I'll always remember as the diving bond, there was the skiing bond, the space station bond, the train bond, the voodoo bond, the one with the jetpac, the one with the hat, the one with the cat (or was that the pussy)…. This bond, this "reinvention of the series" bond will for ever after be stuck in my head as the one with the mobile/cell phones. It seems that every plot twist involves the use of a mobile. And after a while it feels like a very cheap plot device. But of course there is nothing cheap about it, there are so many mobile phones in this movie that one has to wonder how much money the different brands paid to have their latest model included. Speaking of product placement one of the worst moments in the movie happens when our new and fresh Mr. Bond meets the main bond-girl and she comments on his watch asking if it is a Rolex, he replies no that it is an Omega. And to make matters worse she replies "Nice!" Yes people I think Omega will pay a bit extra for that one word. And now guess what every yuppie grown-up boy bond fan will be wanting from his missus for Christmas. "Nice!" They should have cut some bits out of it and tidied it up a bit. And for me the whole bit with the crane was just too unbelievable, I hear laughing at some of the stunts during that aerial chase scene. I'm not saying that bond should be believable; it has to bend rules and strive for the spectacular. But if they go to such lengths to re-energize the series with a grittier and more realistic bond then perhaps they should have kept the matrix-like leaping from building to building to a minimum. Spectacular, maybe if you are 15. And the defibrillator in his car thing, (with the loose wire, come on!) surely there could have been a better way of dealing with the fact that he was poisoned. This is a good bond movie, not a classic but certainly not an embarrassment. A great bond girl, one of the best but Daniel Craig does feel a bit stiff at times, maybe but the next movie he will have gotten over the feeling that he must pout, show his muscles and push out his chest at every opportunity.
6/10
People loved the "new Bond" in Craig. He is great, BUT
daddysarm3 September 2020
Everything else is below-avg 1. The villains are among the least threatening and most comical in the entire Bond oeuvre 2. The poker game plot is just plain tedious 3. The bickering between Bond and the accountant is both comical and tedious 4. The accountant looks and walks more like Tina Fey than like a Bond-girl. I don't even know her name or whether she has done anything substantial since this. She was a disaster for casting.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Casino Royale (2006) ***1/2
JoeKarlosi21 November 2006
All good things must comes to an end, and after the formulaic DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002) went through its usual motions it was evident that the long-running James Bond series had become a caricature of itself and hardly seemed fresh or cutting edge after forty years and 20 films. So Eon Productions took a major gamble in starting from square one with a different-looking blond actor, Daniel Craig, to play a new type of 007. The results are outstanding.

Beginning as though there never was a previous James Bond in existence, Craig here is on his first mission as he plays a multi-million dollar game of "Texas Hold Em" poker against the villainous Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) to put this friend of terrorists out of operation. Along the way there aren't any of those overblown comic book gadgets, so instead we have Bond slugging it out with thugs, and uncharacteristically doing a lot of physical running and lunging in order to take on the bad guys. Daniel Craig immediately slips into the James Bond persona like a comfortable pair of shoes, but at the same time completely makes the character his own type of secret agent; complicated and hard-edged, fresh and hungry for confrontation, and yet occasionally soft-hearted. Though the film is the longest Bond to date (2 hours and 24 minutes) the movie doesn't "feel" long, as there are just the right amounts of action, talk, banter, suspense, and then more action to keep things nicely balanced. Oh, and there are plenty of surprises too.

Bond gets his best leading lady in many years with Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. She is the perfect companion for 007 to become involved with, and they undergo a professional and private relationship that rivals all others in this series. At first I was a bit taken aback, however, by seeing Judi Dench returning as "M" in this rebooted franchise. While I've always enjoyed her very much in the last four Pierce Brosnan entries, it's a bit of a strange mixing of two separate universes to have her associating with this new Craig Bond, as though she's stumbled onto the wrong set in the wrong timeline. All the same, Ms. Dench is very good as Bond's frazzled superior who frequently must put him in his place.

The initial reaction to CASINO ROYALE has been largely positive, and that's a great sign. I've always enjoyed the other installments in this saga, but have to concede it was indeed high time for some sort of re-vamping. Daniel Craig is a tough and exciting new James Bond, and it's my hope that this series may continue and remain its own entity apart from the original lineup of Bond films. All those going in to this film should try to wipe the old slate fresh and clean from their minds and approach this movie as a whole new start on its own terms. It will be very rewarding. ***1/2 out of ****
1/10
Very disappointed with the new 007
BourneJr27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
33 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Royale is without question the worst film of 2006. The story is a mess, the action is overdone and the lead actors can't make the audience care. Really it is a crap movie -oo7 or not. It just wasn't a good flick. A lot of people have confused different with better. Royale was not a Bond flick and it was not a good spy movie. Some people are in love with the idea of Craig/Royale reboot. But in reality what actually appeared on the screen is miles apart from the ideas.

For best actor in questionable new film I would nominate Brandon Routh. HE at least portrayed Superman & Clark Kent. But Superman Returns was another movie reviewers loved and it was crap. I couldn't believe how bad Casino Royale was. The dialogue was adolescent crap.

Craig was hopeless & helpless, several times his life was saved. First time he was about to die from being poisoned, Vesper saves his life and when he was tortured an enemy of his enemy ( who was never revealed ) saved his life again. Very disappointed with the new 007, hope they revoke his license and change 007's before the next movie.
6/10
well
djurrepower9 February 2021
For a bond movie this hits all the spots and pieces. But it can only be enjoyed as much a you can enjoy a bond moive. very formulaic, and not too smart. I mean, if you want a bond movie, this is it. but if you want a good movie, maybe look elsewere.

6/10: ye
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Bond Movie Ever
ckeevil12 April 2007
This bond was nothing even close to what the Bond character should be and has always been in the previous movies. I understand that they were trying to show how Bond got started as 007, which could have worked out had it been done properly. Him falling in love was just too much like the movie where he got married only to have his wife killed shortly after. The writers must have been able to come up with something a little more original than that if they tried. They removed Q from the movie again like they tried in the 60's and it was as big a mistake then as it was now. Not nearly enough high tech gadgets in the movie this time, which is another feature that has always been an important part of what makes a James Bond movie a James Bond movie. The real kicker was the end of the movie. It makes you feel like half of the movie is missing, like you need to look for disk 2 in the case. They went a completely different direction with this movie and in my opinion it failed. I feel that this was the worst Bond movie ever, a real let down.!! :(
31 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Way Bond is Supposed to be...
whitakeroh26 November 2006
Finally, Bond gets back to basics; that is, he is finally masculine and cold-hearted while at the same time exuding charm and confidence. This formula has been missing from the Bond franchise for awhile now. I went and saw this movie with my mom and sister who usually don't care much for action movies, but they both liked this one due to the masculinity of Bond 's character coupled with his new Daniel Craig look. I really enjoyed seeing Bond as someone who turns it on/off, much like we all do between work and home. He admits to the conflict but like the rest of us who work, feels best when he is killing and doing his job. This movie reminds me of Chris Nolan's "batman Begins" because both show real men who are trying to overcome their own failings and weaknesses and in so doing show their resolve and determination to do what they are supposed to do. Batman Begins got Batman to where he is supposed to be, much like Bond returns to his rightful place as a man whom men admire and women adore. I liked it and really felt that Daniel Craig did an outstanding job as Bond. Yet, I must admit of two gripes I have with the movie: 1) too long as far as Bond's rehab and subsequent love w/ Vesper. 2) Not enough Bond dialogue. But overall, I was pleased and look forward to the next one. One last point, it is refreshing to see action movies and male stars acting masculine again. We have shifted so far to the left in all we do that past action movies w/ lead male roles tended to seem soft and feeling oriented. I see male emotion and political correct behavior everyday, I do not want to see that kind of nonsense in an action movie. Good to see some directors haven't turned completely soft coming out of film school.
7/10
So Predictable
asadmontana18 November 2006
As a film it is abysmal. Pretty ordinary stuff you have seen before. Been there done that standard. The film has some good twists to keep you on the edge but really this is the only thing decent. Craig is a meat head who batters the daylights out of criminals. Weren't OO'S meant to be suave and sophisticated. I.E. Sean Connery. All Craig does is beat some guys up straight away. So predictable. The Bond girls are alright but again predictable as before. The 2.5 hr film is filled with standard violence, few explosions, cheesy reply's and where the hell are the gadgets and Q? Average film Definitely not the best bond! ONly watch it if you have time to kill.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best Bond movie ever
satin-482509 January 2022
What a physical presence, what an intensity.

Craig is the best Bond ever.

And Casino Royale is the best Bond movie ever.

The actions scenes are breathtaking.

The story is the best of the series (with Quantum of Solace's but that movie was plagued by a wrong cast for the villain).

And Vesper, oh my, what a character! Eva Green is perfect here (their first meeting, the shower scene, the garden of the hospital by the lake, the final Venice scene). An amazing performance.

This is a masterpiece in its own genre.
1/10
Pouting mediocre Bond in tedious and often silly movie
rosian31 January 2007
What a waste of money, time and effort this tedious movie is. I quickly became bored. When Craig first appeared I assumed he was one of the heavies. He certainly won't do for Bond who is a charismatic fascinating character with great charm, presence and style. Craig has none of these. His Bond is uncouth, badmannered, petulant, immature, unimaginative and completely outclassed by a villain who's none too exciting himself (not the actor's fault, a poor script). Can anyone imagine this mediocrity being a Naval Commander? Craig's Bond isn't worth an 007. There's no way this arrogant twerp can become Sean Connery's Bond according to the timeline, though that's so confused heaven knows what we are supposed to think this movie is about. And those excessive muscles, oh dear, how ugly.

I've recently rewatched all the Bond movies including Never Say Never Again and all except the first deliberately comical CR are cracking good movies, yes even NSNA as it stars Connery, enough said. This 2nd CR is the first total flop. As for CR2007 showing us the "authentic Fleming Bond", no. Timothy Dalton did it and splendidly. We don't need it done again and badly as well.

As for the music - what music? was there any? I recall some cacophonous background din every now, maybe that was meant to be music. The old theme was played at the end. That's about it. Poor titles too.

The whole Bond franchise needs sorting out and getting back on track. No more of that excessive product placement either especially as the products were so mundane. Cellphone Bond would be a better title for this movie. Instead, some decent imaginative gadgets please. Do y8ou realise a university in the US has produced a "cloak of invisibility" - check it out. Brosnan's invisible car isn't quite so impossible as at the time it seemed.

e can do without senseless shoot-em-ups. Let's at least understand why people galore are getting killed when Bond goes berserk with a machine gun - and for far far too long. Filling out the time, scriptwriters couldn't come up with anything better?

I shan't buy the DVD. The movie isn't good enough and I couldn't bear to watch Craig murdering Bond again, so I won't be seeing any more Bond films until we're rid of Craig.

And finally, some of the newspaper reports about Craig are hardly flattering. Has fame gone to this guy's head?
1/10
Worst James Bond EVER!!!
empirian-12 December 2006
I see that many people gave this movie high marks, and for the life of me I cannot understand why. Did they ever see another Bond movie? I don't care that it is close to the original book. I think we've gone past the books a very long time ago.

What makes a Bond movie great is action, explosions, suave characters and a plot that may tie your mind in knots.

Casino Royale has none of the above.

To say that this Bond is rough around the edges would be an understatement. He borders on stupidity. I guess that the idea was to make this as sort of an Episode One Bond: The rookie years.

The makers of this Bond have broken a cardinal rule of Bond movies: Each new Bond has to outdo the last! This is supposed to mean more action, cleverer plot, niftier toys, bigger explosions, more shooting etc. Well, not so with this Bond. This is sort of an inexperienced, naive and googly eyed rookie, who falls in love so quickly and so easily that he offers his whole heart and soul on a platter to a chick he's never even kissed. What????!!!!!!

So at long last this is the list of where they failed:

1. Not enough action:

  • Only half a car chase (no, really!)


(the most "spectacular" chase is ON FOOT)

  • Only 3 (miniature) explosions,


  • Hardly any shooting


2. Weak beginning:

  • prior to the main plot, each Bond begins with a fantastic scene, to blow your mind early, and keep it blown throughout the movie. Well, not this time!


3. NO TOYS WHATSOEVER!!!

(oh yeah, the most high tech thing in the movie is a miniature defibrillator)

4. Torture scenes are taken from the sick imagination of a prepubescent boy.

Remember how the North Koreans tortured Bond in Die Another Day? Well the henchmen in this new Bond must have gotten a letter from Bond's Mom saying that he was allergic to torture, because their idea of torture is closer to giving the guy a wedgie.

5. He's not funny at all!

Part of Bond's charm is that he has a great sense of humor.

Bond makes one joke in this movie. It's funny, but it's also very crass. It is better suited for a pot smoking college student than for the classy Bond.

Oh yeah, and there is one more thing. Every car in this movie is made by a Ford company (Ford, Jaguar, Volvo etc.) I don't mean Bond's cars. I mean EVERY car on the street even. I understand product placement, but this is ridiculous. And Bond's car in this one? An Austin Martin DB S, which only appears for about 5 minutes and instead of rockets, it proudly displays an automatic glove compartment.

This is a kinder, gentler Bond movie that your grandmother may enjoy, if she's really really boring. So if you must go see it, make sure to take Nana along and bring a couple of vicious, crazy bunnies with rabies, just to liven up the action.
5/10
hated it
victor_ricard13 December 2006
1 part Idinana Jones, 1 part transporter with out any of the good parts. this is a poorly executed Bond film. and it left me aching for the Bond of old, Daniel Craig at no point convinced me he was 007, but reminded me of the agent slain in the first Triple x film. The plot is taken from the original Ian Fleming book & very well written,might I add. but missing are the things that make Bond an icon in American cinema. the exotic love interest, the gadgets & even the cars. there aren't any one liners to even make You chuckle and say "That's the Bond i know". the movie tends to linger a bit after about the first 30 minutes,and once it picked up again I was ready to get my refund.

if You really want to see a great "bond" film then see M.I3, Cruise delivers once again.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond but no entertainment
John-ridley3329 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig has taken all the fun out of 007. I'll admit some of the earlier Bond gadgets were well OTT but that is where the fun and enjoyment lay. If you want serious then watch Shakespeare but Bond was Bond and Daniel Craig is not Bond by any stretch of the imagination. Having watched every 007 film I am still waiting to hear a good theme tune since Daniel Craig took up the reins of 007. Diamonds Are Forever, Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only are just a few of the great tunes that came out of the 007 franchise, that stopped when Daniel Craig took over. More's the pity
9/10
Let's hope the next film puts Bond back on track
gring015 December 2007
When I first saw the trailer, I was mesmerised. The film seemed to breathe new life into the franchise and take it into an exciting direction. While for me Brosnan exemplified Bond in terms of suavity, humour and self-confidence, the films degenerated into self-parody, particularly the last Brosnan outing. While I admit I love Casino Royale, I'm beginning to believe as a Bond film it is over-hyped. Of course this film which I've seen an half-dozen times already shakes (pardon the pun) the Bond franchise up which is why I was quickly taken over by it. However, I would submit that it was more because of the novelty rather than appreciation for what it is threatening to do with Bond that influenced me. Let me make the analogy: I loved Batman as a kid and had an impressive collection. I was deeply influenced by The Dark Knight Returns because it turns the myth on its head (the forward to my leather-bound edition had a preface by Alan Moore dissecting myths such as Bond, who he describes as one with "a contempt and hatred for women.)" I don't accept this as part of the 'canon.' I would never have wanted Batman to become this neo-fascist vigilante, or want Superman to be little more than a covert terror weapon for the US. But I enjoyed it for the novelty sake. Just as I enjoy showing my history class "Red Son" where Superman grows up in the USSR and works for the man of steel- Stalin. So it is for Casino Royale. Daniel Craig is not the Bond I grew up wanting to be. Possibly he's a more fleshed-out representation of the Bond in Fleming's first book, but he lacks his background, social class (VERY important for Fleming), and patriotism. This 'Bond' is completely cynical. One would not have believed him to be bi or trilingual with a Swiss mother and educated in the most posh environment of England. What he gets out of his job is a mystery. He lacks humour, sophistication, class. He is not even a 'commander' anymore, but one who has the usual American-influenced SAS background. In other words, there is little 'English' about him. I don't blame the director, scriptwriter or producer who I think all did an admirable job of making a film I will see again and again and will look forward to the sequel. But looking at the type of films coming out of Britain, this is influenced by edgy, remorseless films such as "London to Brighton. and even, yes, "Layer Cake." No doubt he will somehow be transformed over time into the character we associate with Bond. However, if we our natures are formed by the time we are five, I fail to see how he'll pick up chicks with a one-liner, know the best wine to drink with caviare, and think to straighten his tie when speeding underwater in a Q-protoboat. And none of that will change the sins committed with completely disregarding continuity. As I liked with comic books, a box would explain background by saying "see issue 172, printed back 13 years ago") Let's hope it's business as usual in the next instalment. England expects, James. www.tracesofevil.blogspot.com
10/10
The human James Bond
thechosen111 December 2006
For all those using the word "pure" to describe Bond in this movie: I agree 110 per cent. Before I get to Daniel Craig (fantastic, *fantastic*), I'd just like to say that I'm among those people who say that this movie is the best Bond movie yet. It was more real, more believable, more from-planet-Earth. The plot was simple enough to understand (sorry, but it was), the characters were less outrageous and we finally learn that Bond is after all, one among us. Human. He thinks and he *feels* - instead of just looking fantastic (which Craig evidently had no problem with).

Now I'll talk about him. Yes, absolutely, without a doubt - best Bond ever. We all know Sean Connery was brilliant, Pierce Brosnan was awesome etc etc etc, but Daniel Craig gave Bond that human touch that has always been lacking from the other movies. He didn't have many fancy gadgets to play with, so all he could do was show us what he could do with James Bond as a character and not as a complicated piece of machinery. He's always been a fine actor and I have to say, I was really looking forward to how he'd do in a Bond film. I loved what he did with Bond. He added a new dimension to the character and did not, for a second, look like he was uncomfortable in the least. Not even for a nano-second did I have to think, "Man, they made the wrong choice here. So-and-so could have been so much better." I can't wait to see him in the next one.

Mads Mikkelsen as a villain was great too. Quiet, subtle, there to do the job. Nothing over-the-top. No over-acting. (Kind of like Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye - good, solid acting). I really liked Eva Green in this movie as well. She was way more likable and less annoying than Bond girls of the past. She has a really natural, loose acting style. No artificiality.

Boy oh boy, this movie was refreshing. It was like a breath of fresh air after being caught up in a huge cloud of dense smog. With the exception of GoldenEye, which was awesome, the double-o movies just seemed to be one brainless, action-packed drag after another. It was so good just to see a *real* story, with *real* characters and great acting - with the action thrown in for good measure (and that itself was a whole lot of fun too).

Doesn't matter if you're a Bond fan or not, GO AND SEE THIS MOVIE. You will not regret it. If it's not screening anymore where you are and you're waiting for the DVD release, grab it immediately.

10/10, *****/***** A++++++
7/10
Starts with a bang, ends with a whimper; A different 007 indeed
saarvardi13 November 2006
After watching Casino Royale, one cannot escape the conclusion that for better or worse, Daniel Craig is a new kind of Bond, and entirely different from the one Pierce Brosnan portrayed in his 4 films as 007. Craig is a grittier, darker, more arrogant Bond. He plays his role very seriously and lacks some of the self aware irony that Brosnan brought with him to the part. While the latter had lots of charm and was reminiscent of nostalgic 1950's actors, the new Bond represents a 21st century type of masculinity. He's a man of few words, pumped up from head to toe (girls will be drooling all over this guy), and always believes he knows what to do best, even when his supervisor's suggest otherwise. He's pretty similar to TV's Jack Bauer from the hit series "24" for that matter, although what Craig lacks in brain and wit (compared to Bauer), Bauer lacks in body building (compared to the new Bond).

This being said, I think Casino Royale was afraid of really letting this new Bond character evolve into the dark hero he could have been. Instead, we get a half baked version of numerous action heroes we've already seen before. The movie itself is much like it's main character - rather indecisive of where it's going and what it wants to do upon getting there.

Clocking in at a ridiculously long 144 minutes, the film jump starts with one of the more intense action sequences seen on the silver screen in recent years. Bond chases an African arm smuggler halfway through an African marketplace, into a construction site and onto a foreign embassy. Both guys make insane leaps from one place to the other, hang onto construction equipment while suspended in the air, while explosions that demand suspension of disbelief ensue. This top notch (yet cheesy) action continues through several sequences that start off the film with a bang, each one somewhat calmer than the previous one. Through the African arm smuggler, Bond eventually reaches a French millionaire who benefits financially from various terror acts (this is the first Bond that speaks openly about 9/11 and laughs off the Cold War era). It is during a Casino game that will determine the future of the terror fonds that the film is supposed to peak. However, it just keeps winding down even more-so from there on out. Craig isn't too strong when it comes to the dramatic sequences, and the only dramatic lead that saves some grace is Eva Green (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven), that only appears towards the end of the first 1/3 of the film.

To sum it all up, Casino Royale could have been much better had the rest of the movie looked or felt like the beginning. It had all the right ingredients and heaps of potential, both regarding Craig as well as regarding the meanings through which the plot line unfolded in front of the viewer. However, the over-longed romantic scenes, the winding down of the plot and the lackluster climax couldn't compensate for a strange new Bond, which might just take some time getting used to. Also, the lack of Q and his mechanical gizmos, for one, was also somewhat disappointing. There's just so much an audience will be willing to bare.

I gave it a 5 out of 10.
8/10
Bond returns, so does quality
Otterman_MK216 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fresh start in the 'Bond' series, Casino Royale takes Bond back to his roots in a story based on Ian Fleming's original novel. Having never been a fan of the previous Bond movies, which are famed for their focus on gadgets and an incredibly suave, almost fantastical portrayal of Bond, I was impressed to hear Casino Royale would return to Ian Fleming's original vision of a tough, cold, brutal and more realistic Bond.

Not only is the film a success, but it has converted me to being a fan of the series. What makes Casino Royale so successful is its loyalty to Fleming's original vision and Daniel Craig's outstanding performance as Bond. Whilst all the previous actors to play the part have all been great in their own ways, Daniel Craig portrays the real James Bond, realistically playing a cold and brutal character whilst keeping the audience invested and interest in the character on an emotional level. Not only is he great in the role in smaller, more acting-oriented scenes, but he is incredibly entertaining to watch during the ambitious action sequences the film boasts, and it is easy to tell Mr. Craig is more than comfortable in the shoes of 007.

At its core, Casino Royale is Bond at the very start of his career, and as the film progresses Bond goes through several learning-curves. The film makes an impact in the sense that you feel the pain Bond goes through, every fight feels brutal and painful, the action feels genuinely real and you are always aware of the incredible threat surrounding Bond. There are scenes dedicated to the aftermath of Bond's fights, and you really sense this is a human character going through very human emotions, and allows you to gain more of a sense of who Bond is. Personally, the film gave me the impression that the character is punishing himself, despite his straight-faced talks that killing does not bother him. That is another thing I found made the film so successful- all the mystery of the character remains, yet we understand more about him than ever before.

Speaking about the film itself, the entire piece boasts incredible landscapes that have always been unique to the Bond films, utilising the various settings to be incorporated into stunning wide-shots, camera angles and action sequences, all to their full capacity. Two prime examples include a section in which Bond is chasing a bomb-maker through Madagascar, the climax of the chase taking them to a top of a tall crane overlooking the island, another being an action sequence taking place in Venice within a sinking building. It is undoubtedly a very ambitious film, trying to remain true to the classic exciting action-sequences of the classic films whilst not crossing the line of 'over-the-top'. Fortunately, the film balances it perfectly, making all the action sequences thrilling but believable. Performance wise the film was top standard, particular credit going to Mads Mikkelsen who portrays the films chilling and iconic-looking villain, Le Chiffre. Judi Dench reprises her role as M (ignore her previous portrayals, this is a new story) distorting the time-line, but the film would feel incomplete without her strict presence. Eva Green portrays Vesper Lynd, the 'Bond-Girl' of the story, with a key difference- she is the woman Bond falls in love with, and is ultimately the reason for his coldness towards others.

For the most part, the film flows brilliantly, which is an achievement in itself considering this is a film centred on a card game. Even if you are unfamiliar with the rules of 'Texas Hold 'Em', the film makes short work of making it engaging, overcoming the challenge of making a card game feel exciting to the audience. As I said, the film is entertaining for the most part, however I felt it dropped dramatically during the film's third act and actually felt slightly bored as the film started to trudge its way towards the end. Though I am aware this part of the story is necessary in the continuity, paving the way for Bond's future behaviour, but it just felt out of place in a Bond film.

With no real flaws, Casino Royale succeeds in achieving its goal: Bringing Bond back to his routes whilst making a great film. Daniel Craig portrays the way Bond was always intended to be seen, whilst staring in an incredibly engaging film. Credit must be given to the film's focus on Bond's pain and the ambitious action sequences, however be prepared for a rather average final act. Not to worry though- the classic 'Bond Theme' is played in the credits!
3/10
God action movie, not the Bond from cinemas, maybe the Bond from Ian Fleming
pabloesp19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
29 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First i have to say that i haven't read any of the Ian Fleming's 007 Books, so maybe this Bond is actually the Bond from the Book. Having said that i proceed to my commentary. I think that for a MOVIE franchise, this is an installment that could have not be named it's character James Bond, because for moments i thought i was seeing The Transporter 3. It an action movie, all right, but fans of Bond have somehow growth seeing the movies, and in the movies we had a bond that it's a mix of some things: Seductive, playboy, charming, cold killer, smart. This bond has only the cold killer, and you can add some arrogance that comes from being the first bond, but i didn't liked this bond, nothing against Daniel Craig, he is doing what the script says. What i find about Daniel Craig, it's that he doesn't transfer any charm to the picture. I missed also the opening scene with the bond aimed and shooting to the screen with the classic bond theme. I don't get it why they didn't continue with this. Also the lack of girls silhouettes in the movie theme was disappointing but not important. The movie theme i found it not right for a bond movie, but as this for me was not a Bond movie, it's OK. At the final scene, we see the future bond, in tuxedo, but the lack of a Walter PPK, and the replacement for another firearm (i will not say which) give me the wrong idea of bond. Maybe in the next bond we'll see something more like the old bond, not all is needed, but a few things from classic bond. At least at the end i got to hear the bond theme.
3/10
Convincing Bond but unconvincing script
NigelRPerkins20 November 2006
Bond is back, but in a disappointing vehicle - and I don't mean the Aston. Casino Royale had some imaginative titles and the music was up to scratch but the plot and pacing of the film were not up to the standard of the better (and especially early) Bonds. There are some nice references to the early Bond sequences and all the recognised elements are there - including the inevitable dastardly villains (foreign accents of course), the glam Bond girls, the cars and some spectacular effects. In summary, Daniel Craig made a good Bond and given a better script could be a prospect for high quality future entertainment. The question now though is, with all of the Ian Fleming titles done, where next ?
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond is serious, and it is a good thing to see.
randyhndrsn29 November 2006
I really liked casino royale, the one thing that really was good about it was how James bond came off like a real spy or assassin.Instead of just some ladies man with a gun, I am a huge fan of the 007 series but this one had something about it.The action was just good, and Craig makes a very good bond for the new generation who doesn't wanna see the movie bond.The only thing that kinda needed some work, was the story that I found a little weak at some points and while watching the movie I thought about this.But after it was over, I thought about the whole movie and everything I had just seen, then I came to the conclusion of it being a very solid movie.Even some minor weak points couldn't destroy that, this film had style and it was just a pretty cool movie to watch.I'd advise people to see it in the theater, and I even think it is worth owning because I feel it is like a movie that gets even better with multiple viewings.All in all, casino royale had a great new style for a bond movie to be made and this makes me really wanting a sequel with Daniel Craig as bond again.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Room to improve, time to be patient
cobbler8825 November 2006
As the trailers indicate, "Casino Royale" is sort of a prequel to the other films, but takes place in today's world. Fair enough. There are so many incongruities and continuity errors among the films that if you try to take any sort of linear approach to the movies as an ongoing story you'll drive yourself quite mad. The fans just ignore them. After all, if Felix Lighter can toggle back and forth between races from movie to movie, we can accept that this is sort of a fresh start with a familiar character without it necessarily being negative for the franchise.

This is the approach I took to the film. The character is familiar, but not exactly what we're used to. He is closer to the Connery portrayal as a "blunt instrument" for MI-6, but he is more raw and I think the key here is that many things that are likely being seen as negatives by many can be explained by the fact that the movie IS a sort of prequel. He doesn't speak that much. He doesn't have the groan-inducing, corny quips. He doesn't spend time lunching with his target. Those are more the marks of a polished James Bond who, as of this movie, doesn't exist yet. He gets his 00 status at the very beginning of the film. I choose to see the character differences as a Bond at the early stage of his evolution, rather than decrying them as flaws in the performance.

That being said, there are still things in this film that are departures from the norm. Bond seems to rely more on the team concept at MI-6, rather than doing all the legwork until an entire Naval fleet makes its timely appearance at the end to clean things up. This sort of runs counter to him being the headstrong, ego-driven character. There were almost no gadgets to speak of, so no obligatory "now listen up, 007" gadget-introduction scene. It was a little more action hero, and less smooth operator, and while I think it's fine that the character is not as polished (see above), it seemed like they had similar scenes that you get from previous films, but it didn't seem like there was a great deal of thought put into how to put those scenes together, or how to transition from one to another, especially the closer to the end of the film you get. It made things seem choppy or tacked-on at times.

I think that in the next few films the Bond character will evolve more into what Connery gave us, but I would probably find a new director who understands the franchise a bit more. Pretty much any director could have pulled off what was shot in this film.

Overall, I encourage viewers to take this film on its own merits, rather than comparing it too much with earlier incarnations. That being said, it's better than Timothy Daulton, but will never be better than Connery. I think there is a good chance of being better than Moore, though, and maybe even the last Brosnan one. At the very least, if you are a Bond fan, you will be entertained, and any 2+ hour movie gives you more for your money.
Where the hell was the music?
willower99920 November 2006
i thought the opening sequence was wonderful, the follow on to the titles was OK. But in any Bond format, there is an opening - titles- then an action sequence that usually ends up with that big blaring orchestra line - daaaah daaaaah daaaaaaah etc. Nope. not here. he lay behind a wall looking at a mobile phone when he shoulda been running like hell with the world after him. Action beat was very uneven. Opening was full of sudden changes - fine- great beat all the way to the casino (if a little forced and unfounded at times) but spare us the post casino hiatus. Slow , uneven and stuttering. Very poor storytelling, lacked earlier suggestion and just bored the hell outta me. Too many layers, too long and just not held together coherently. It seemed like it just went from one storyboard scene to another without joining the dots. Pity really, it started so well. "let's go from the casino to a beach to sinking a building in Venice to that line""my name is Bond, James Bond" "and not worry about how. A movie of three parts and two halves. The second was rubbish. And where the hell was the music when it was needed?
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A Disaster Movie
ferris_scotland20065 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I sat down to watch this film I had a nagging doubt that Daniel Craig wouldn't be able to fill the shoes of his predecessors. Sadly for him they forgot to make a bond film for him! The start was drab and low key with no bond music, the opening seen was quite good but nothing new and the film then went from bad to worse. There were no good cars, stunts, women, gadgets, villains or exciting finishes. To add to this Daniel looked awkward with the women and clearly has never played Texas hold-em before. This card game was the only real story a lucky win from $5m to $30m against!! Not really Bond beating a world dominating villain?! And finally Bond is supposed to be cool and collected not a thuggish fighter... a truly horrible film... roll on Clive Owen and a decent plot....
1/10
Don't believe the compliments....
carmelo-196920 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
34 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
frankly i have to say that i am a bit shocked here, many people are smart enough and wrote correctly about how this movie isn't special at all, but those that are writing here that its a good movie, and giving it compliments i have to say only 2 things: 1. the are linked to the production company of the movie in someway and its their job to tell you'll how "good" the movie is. 2. the others that are saying how good it is are just, lets say one of the two, not so smart if you'll understand what i mean or they haven't seen enough bond movies, or cannot compare and are just praising it cause they are easily entertained.

the movie itself isn't a bad bond but here are some points that will help you'll make up your mind: 1. Daniel Craig is to stiff, from the beginning until the end of the movie his face emotions barely change, usually he is just to serious, not matter the situation. 2. no gadgets at all! shocking for me cause i have seen all bond movies several times, no Q branch, no money-penny, nothing smart in the movie at all, and the replacement for it is violence. 3. also the most exotic locations look dull in this movie, i have no idea how they ruined it but they did, beside 1 or 2 places, all other locations you'll just forget in no time. 4. to many commercials, this really made me angry, cars,lap tops,etc and every 2 minutes you see a cel phone, nothing is used with brain, just commercials. 5. plot is silly, usually bond saves the world, here you have a fight for a bit over a 100 million dollars, thats it, thats what the movie is about, nothing special, also poker game is not real, as a poker player i can tell you that it looks idiotic and also very long. 6. last part of the movie is a mess, you don't understand clearly who is against who and what is going on, many new bad people "turn" up suddenly, people that were not mentioned all along the movie,looks like someone wanted to rap up things and go home.

conclusion: there are some nice parts in the movie, especially in the middle, but thats all, almost no laughing parts so don't expect to much as a bond movie, as a action thriller it is okay i guess but there are many action thriller movies today and in the past that were much better.
8/10
Yes, the name is Bond, James Bond ..
SonOfMoog6 December 2006
If it did nothing else, Casino Royale proved that there is still creative life in the franchise. Cold war or no, Bond still has something to say, is still relevant, and can still impress the hell out of us. The only question to answer is whether James Bond still plays in Peoria, and the opening numbers suggest he does.

I think what surprised me most about Craig's Bond is how human he was. He has feelings; he can be reached.. and hurt. He gets tired, scared, desperate, makes mistakes, and worst of all, seems fallible to those around him. To M early on, and Vesper later. How so very different from his predecessors. I like the change. I like the athletic Bond, too. This was one really bad dude, and we knew that long before we saw his pecs.

I find myself thinking that Craig's Bond fits in the Bond canon like Powell's Marlowe fits in the Marlowe canon: resourceful, courageous, smart, and dangerous, but also real and human. What makes him most human is that he is not above being debased by the dirty job he has to do. All the killing, the lies, the stolen moments, the dangers ultimately take their toll, and the Bond we see in the denouement in Venice evokes our pity.

A very good movie: one of the two or three best in the canon, and a solid 8.5 out of 10.
8/10
Good movie, but not a James Bond
golden_bladers18 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie was very good, nice action, plot, acting; Everything fell in place quite nicely. What I did not like is that I did not feel like I was watching a James Bond. Things I felt were out of place: -Where is Q??? A James Bond with no Q or gadgets cant be right. -Bloody violence. I guess its the 2000 PG version of acceptable violence. Obviously nothing shocking compared to other movies, but compare to previews James Bond's movies I think was a bit much. There was rarely any blood or disturbing scenes, like him suffocating that freedom fighter in the casino hotel. -No girls dancing in the introduction scene!!! The introduction was very nice, but the girls went missing :( -Daniel Craig!!! He is a good actor, he played the role well, but he doesn't LOOK like a James Bond.

Rest was alright. Ill give it a 8/10
1/10
worst bond ever
martijnvanorsouw19 November 2006
is this James bond?are we watching the same movie here? worst movie of 2006 and worst bond ever. do you guys know the loony tonnes droopy?well this James is droopy.no emotions. no good looking women.no style.the movie is also to long.its 2 hours and 15 min long. the only good sense is the opening whit the chase of that guy ad the snake gamble. i don't want to be negative but hey guys this really is a bad movie.don't go and see it. its a waist of time... and whats up whit the gadgets? he only has one in his car the reanimation devise and ow what a wonder,he needs it . even his phone is not a gadget.tracing Sm's ant telephone calls.come one guys.why dos this movie get a 8.3 here on IMDb.were talking about the same movie i hope.
14 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Stale Dry Martini
friedem0n200418 November 2006
James Bond is back and this time he plays a high stakes poker game against one of his toughest foes.

To tell you the truth, I was the least bit interested in the story when it was first revealed. I should of trusted my instincts when Casino Royale was announced two years ago. This film, which runs at a lengthy 144 minutes, was one of the worst Bond films to date. I don't know if it was sheer disappointment or just a non-believable story. The story, which I think is the most important part of a film, was non-existent. Daniel Craig is James Bond this time around and man does he do an awful job. (Yes all you blond bond haters, there is finally a reason to hate him and not only because he's blond.) His acting was stale and boring. The story was so poorly told and convoluted with quick plot turns, that even a person with an IQ of 200 would have trouble figuring it out. (That's not to say that I have an IQ of 200 but…) The movie quickly shifts from one idea to another without letting the audience have a clear idea about what is going on.

The only good thing about this film is that it is finally over. After 2 hours and 24 minutes of sheer torture (and there is even a torture scene in the movie, that was so laughable because it was unnecessary.) I can finally write this review, and let you know to waist your money on something with some quality.
6/10
Verges on being a miniseries
d_nuttle7 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fresh and original take on the Bond franchise sputters and then stalls because it is simply too, too, too long. It's actually about two-and-a-half Bond movies rolled into one, but I didn't feel like I was getting a bargain. A spy thriller can stay exciting for 90 minutes at most. This one weighs in at 144 minutes. I saw the ambiguous betrayal coming and by then I was bored, so I wasn't forgiving of the fact that I could see it coming. I just wanted the movie to be over.

Bond fans should know that the violence in this movie is intense and graphic and at times downright disturbing to watch. This isn't a kid-safe movie.

For the most part, Daniel Craig is terrific in the role. I liked the fact that they didn't make this a gadget-driven movie. And the sets and scenes were sharp and invigorating. The poker game, however, lagged and dragged. I felt like I sat through all 72 hours of it. And James Bond playing Texas Hold 'Em? That particular update jarred, for me. When I think of Texas Hold 'Em, I think of the creepy guys playing on ESPN. It was kind of like seeing James Bond throwing horseshoes.

The villain looked like something from a Nikelodeon show. They made Bond a far more believable, flesh-and-blood character. Apparently they decided to compensate by making the villain even more cartoonish than usual. Beyond that, it turned out that the "villain" of this movie was just a front for another villain, who in turn was a front for another villain. So everything that happened in the first 90 minutes was just a setup for what came after. It wasn't worth it. Either the "setup" should be the whole movie, or it should be trimmed down to 9 or 10 minutes, and the "real" villain should take center stage.

The final scene, with the final line, definitely snapped me back awake again, and ranks as one of the best teasers for a sequel I've ever seen. But I doubt that I'll see the sequel.

Too, too, too long.
9/10
Opening credits to Final Frame - You're "In" the movie
MRavenwood19 November 2006
The opening credits for Bond movies, long famous for the writhing women and cutting-edge animation technique, gets a spiffy update to signal a new era of Bond that focuses more on the Cold War spy/man of action angle, rather than the impossibly infallible lady killer...not that he doesn't manage to allure. The chase scenes are still present, but not necessarily done in a car with a requisite fruit cart tipping over in the open air market. The action is very fast and you'll burn calories just watching this extremely physical role unfold at the speed it does.

Casino Royale is actually the first of Ian Flemmings novels and introduces the character to the world, but the original 60's movie made of it was a send-up of spy movies and a "counter" to the overwhelming success of the devil-may-care MI-6 agent previously portrayed by Sean Connery.

Since the series has outlived all the book titles and certainly its authors, it makes sense to re-start the character from the beginning. Introduce how he got his "double-oh" designation, his Astin Martin, how he developed his drinking preferences, and how his heart was forever broken. He is thus rebuilt in the form of Daniel Craig,an actor who looks neither brooding nor suave on the poster, but gets it done on screen.

The wry humor traditionally present in the films is still present but (mercifully!) the horrible puns and the incongruously over-the-top daftness of the jokes appears to have been removed. The only detraction I can make from the movie is the persistence of the product placement in the script here and there. Most egregious would be the Omega (Oh-mee-guh? Do the Brits pronounce this brand name this way?) A necessary evil, and a tolerable one in film-making of this magnitude. I paid $10.50 to see it in a Los Angeles theatre and I have every intention of seeing it again. (So many movies look so LAME these days, I usually don't bother seeing them even once...)

Technical note: the camera work is amazing. The editing of the construction site scene alone is just thrilling. How many cameras it must have taken to get some of these scenes accomplished, I cannot guess.
2/10
Make it stop!
ldr3217 April 2007
This flick was absurdly long and more than a bit boring. The chase scene at the start of the film set the tone for the rest of the movie: Too long, too drawn out, too improbable. There were three or four points in this movie where it could have (and should have) ended, but----No! Unbelievably the next scene came on and the movie kept playing. When it finally did end I actually heard some folks around the theater saying, "Thank God! Let's go!" Rent it, if you must, but consider watching it in three or four parts. Maybe it will go down easier that way. As far as the new Bond is concerned: He is OK. Nothing great, nothing horrible, just OK. I liked him far better in Layer Cake where the character he played was a better match to his style. If only Sean Connery didn't have to age!
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Entertaining, original and overall incredible with some superb acting and action
Holt34418 May 2019
Casino Royale was once my least favorite Bond movie, but now I see how wrong I was. It has everything a great Bond movie should have which is well written characters, great and suspenseful action sequences, incredible locations/sets, great writing and a great spy thriller. Martin Campbell is back in the director chair, he created Goldeneye which was a critical success and he did the same with this movie. I really liked the realistic approach of the story and fight scenes, making it more human and original in terms of the villain and the story around him. Fight sequences were top notch in how brutal and personal they were, the sound effects and choreography helped a lot at making it perfect.

The ensemble cast is just perfect, with many well known actors playing the roles and having some nice cameos. The actors that stand out the most is Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen. Mads' performance was a highlight of the movie, he's perfect as the villain as he showed here and later on in the show Hannibal, portraying a villain with such human emotion that you just want to believe he's good deep inside, nailed it without a doubt.

This movie has now became one of my favorite Bond movies as everything about it was just remarkable and entertaining, perfection. One thing that grew on me was how James Bond was portrayed, using character development and a great actor that simply portrays an amazing double 00 agent in a perfect way.
1/10
I am wondering if I saw the same movie as the others
kkccoo13 August 2007
I just went to see this movie for free. I had heard a lot of praises for this movie. When I back, I was wondering if I saw the same movie as the others. What a boring movie without any logics! I don't care how different this bond from the previous ones. But please give me some funny, interesting things to look at. There are none of it. No fancy gadgets, No witty talks and No unpredictable plots. This new bond is not a gentleman anymore and turned out to be a cold hearted killer without any brains. I got it, it is the bond before becoming bond. But come on, Bond has IQ of 50, give me a break.

!!!!!The following has spoilers!!!!!!

1) As a well-trained spy, he didn't know to be careful about the drink in the casino, even he spotted the girl friend of the evil man was nearby.

2) He gave his password to the government girl, although he know little about her. And after that, he didn't even bother to check if the money has been transfered to his account for a week.

Luckily, the enemy has lower IQ. Well, they saved "Eclipse" telephone number on their phones for this bond to find out. How convenient! Now I am glad that I didn't pay to see this movie.
9/10
Ok...... Craig won my vote
fuelrodx23 November 2019
Love it when we get a nice kickbutt film. This my Bond, for sure. He has the look, the persona, and he's a badder Bond. I must've watched this film 8 times. Getting Mads Mikkelson on the other side of the table was a winner too. He played the right adversary for Craig's part. When Bond was poisoned, it just put a different twist in the whole game and he comes back looking as fresh as possible to continue the bets. Nicely done.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Casino Royale & Daniel Craig STINKS MAJOR!
pax9102 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
22 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I want to give this movie a -100 ... but 1 is the lowest score I can give ... so.... What a WASTE of my money. This movie is beyond awful ... it STUNK to HIGH HEAVEN!

The WORST BOND Movie after Die Another Day and Halle Barry crappy casting!

1) Daniel Craig ... he is the WORST Bond ever casted ... the guy looks Phony and Acts Phony ... sorry correction ... Daniel Craig CAN NOT ACT!!!

2) James Bond supposed to be a Gentleman ... since when James Bond calls his women "Bitches"!?!?!?

3) This Bond movie stinked as a whole ... there was hardly any suspense like the good old Bond movies used to have

4) A Ford for Bond's car in 2006 ... come on give me a damn break!

5) And the best gadget they had was a slide out Tray from the Dashboard! Get Real!!!

6) Starting Music STINKS ... was nothing like what James Bond movies are known for … or are the Standard music …

7) Starting Animations was not even anything close to what a Bond Movie supposed to be … what the heck was the Producer, Screen-writer or Director thinking about … AND, whose big idea was the Black & White Crap … so the speak flash-backs all about … it STINKS to high heaven …

8) I am getting TIRED of "Judi Dench" as "M" ... she was not able to carry it before ... and even more so ... now ... get rid of the witch ... PLEASE lets forget about politically correct B.S. and make a decent BOND Movie ...

9) Also, why would the Director think it is SMART or SEXY to start the movie by zooming in some "M" Judi Dench's wrinkly and sagging Breasts ... who the hell wanted to get a shot of Dench's pruned up chest ... yuckkkkkkkk!!!

Bottom Line ... This CASINO ROYALE needs to go to the TRASH CAN! And the Producer, Director ... FIRED!
4/10
disappointing!!
tiggerbaby787 April 2007
Well i hired this one out just like two others and yet again i was very surprised, considering the hype this film got.

I was very disappointed in the whole film Eva green was bad actress and Daniel Craig needs to stay doing what he does best which is TV not films.

I was really sad to not see a main character in this one, as for the plot i saw the old one and this one and still think both were as bad as each other, where choosing Daniel Craig was concerned they made a bad decision this was a let down to the bond franchise and i for one wouldn't recommend it if you like the James bond films.

My favourite person in it was M and thats only because she could actually act. The only thin that made it similar to other bond films was the over the top stunts etc etc.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond Is Back
jgt2422 November 2006
Or should I say 'Bond Begins'? After the box-office smash yet critical disaster of Die Another Day, the owners of the 2nd most profitable movie franchise decided it was time to start fresh. They found a new Bond, toned down the gadgets, turned back the clock, and turned up the action/violence. Yet they zeroed in on the characters and drama with the help of a revamped script by Academy Award Winner Paul Haggis (Crash). The result is a refreshing and much needed change that makes Casino Royale not only the best Bond adventure in 20 years, but one of the best movies of 2006.

From the moment the movie opens, we know this is not the Bond we've come to know so well. He's rough, sometimes careless, but definitely a force to be reckoned with. And Daniel Craig plays the part to perfection. If you have any gripes about how he isn't a good "Bond", go see the movie, and I almost guarantee you'll change your mind. Bond was not conceived as a suave, good-looking ladies man that had a license to kill. He was a deadly spy that did whatever had to be done to complete his mission. Later, he grew into his charming self, but in Casino Royale, we see the unpolished version. He also has a heart, as he falls for the beautiful Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). She is also not the typical Bond girl. She's smart, independent, and not just someone for Bond to save.

The story is toned down, too. Bond isn't even trying to save the world. In the post 9/11-era that we live in, the worry is terrorists. Casino Royale takes this fact and uses it to create a much more realistic threat. Bond ultimately has to gamble to try and stop the villain from funding terrorists. If he loses, terrorists get more money. If he wins, they don't get that money. While this may seem boring, it is actually very thrilling, especially the poker game between Bond and the villain. This allows the story to focus more on the characters than just having drama to get to the next action scene. But understand one thing, there is definitely action. A lot of action. Actually some of the best action of any Bond film. This may not be the normal Bond, but it is Bond. You get chases across the tops of cranes, a terrorist incident at Miami International, shoot-outs, a fist-fight in a tight stairwell, double-crosses, torture, triple-crosses, cool cars, great locales, and, of course, hot women.

Casino Royale is a great time at the movies. It's edgier and darker than previous Bonds, but that makes it that much better. In the final minute of the film, a very important question is asked: "Who is this?" We've been waiting 4 years to hear the answer. "The name's Bond. James Bond." And when that familiar tune finally begins to play as the credits roll, we know it was worth the wait. Bond is back.
9/10
How Bond Became 007
fwomp24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How did James Bond become a "00" agent? What makes him so good at his job and so distant to the beautiful women he often encounters? Wrap your mind around those questions and then go and see director Martin Campbell's latest Bond flick, CASINO ROYALE. That someone could pull off such a fantastic film whilst giving us the Bond-background is something of a marvel. Leave aside (for the moment) that Daniel Craig isn't as debonair as previous Bonds, and you just may enjoy Casino Royale on a level never before seen.

It's simply a fact that Craig isn't the dashing, clean-cut, and uppity Bond audiences have come to expect. He's rougher, tougher, and a bit naive. He loves instead of lusts. He learns to kill with a conscious (in the beginning), but still delivers pithy lines ("That last hand nearly killed me.") The question of James Bond's beginnings have always been in question and Casino Royale gives them to us while also delivering the action, a few gadgets, a kick-butt automobile, and the curvaceous women we expect.

Director Martin Campbell first cut his teeth on a Bond film with GOLDEN EYE in 1995, so he knows the lay of the land. He also went on to direct the stylish THE MASK OF ZORRO in 1998. From there his repertoire stammers with several duds, but came back in glaringly fine fashion with this year's Casino Royale.

From the opening credits with its flashy and somewhat retro poker card graphics, to the black-and-white film stock beginning, audiences immediately realize they're in for something special. We quickly watch Bond make his first two kills, granting him access to his 007 status. Then we get to see him nearly ruin his career by causing an international crisis. From here he's sent on hiatus by M (Judi Dench, MRS. HENDERSON PRESENTS) to get his head together. But of course Bond never lets go of an assignment until it's finished. Continuing his international crisis across borders, he travels to a tropical island where he meets up with terrorists who are trying to advance their causes by selling bomb-making material. He meets up with one of the racketeers' wives in true Bond fashion. But the British Secret Service have their eyes on him and quickly find out what he's up to. They are forced to go along with Bond's plans to enter into a high-stakes poker game with the evil Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen, EXIT), a facially scarred and blood weeping villain who recently lost a ton of money because of Bond's interference in his "business". If Le Chiffre wins the $120 million game, he'll have enough money to get back into supporting bombers and bomb-makers.

Bond also happens to be The Service's best card player, but he has to convince the penny pinchers of the British government that he's got a good chance of winning or they'll refuse to back him (if Bond loses the British will, in effect, be sponsoring terrorism). Enter Vesper Lynd (Eva Green, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN), a government finance agent who agrees to give James Bond the money to enter the tournament. As the cards fall, so does Bond's chances. As all appears hopeless, Bond wins the tournament, thus crushing Le Chiffre's chances at re-entering terrorist haven, and threatening his very existence because he's lost all of his financing given to him by the dark forces of the world (they'll obviously want their money back at some point and now Le Chiffre is broke). Obviously Le Chiffre is none to happy about Bond winning and kidnaps him and Vesper.

By now Bond has grown very fond of Vesper and they form a relationship unheard of in terms of Bondom. He confesses his love for her and eventually (after a dizzying and testicularly funny escape from the clutches of death), agrees to leave the Queen's Service in order to live a life of love and happiness with her. But all Bond fans know this cannot be. A sense of terrible foreboding grips the film as Bond learns the true nature of Vesper.

It's wonderful to see how all of this effects James Bond and how it coalesces to help form the Ian Fleming character we've all grown up with. Vesper, through Bond's love of her and her betrayal of him, helps turn James into the tough-loving, womanizer we all know. This betrayal also lets us see why James Bond doesn't trust anyone and prefers to work solo.

So Daniel Craig being a bit rougher around the edges in appearance actually fit the script nicely. He IS rougher. He IS tougher. And he IS the Bond we've come to enjoy.

(Note: Caution to all those who get this when it comes out on DVD. There is another comedy film entitled CASINO ROYALE starring Peter Sellers, so make sure you're aware of which is which.)
2/10
If you like Brosnan as Bond, you probably won't like this one!
faith19917 March 2007
After all the hype and critical racket leading up to and following the opening of this movie, I was really expecting to enjoy myself.

I didn't, and a lot of it admittedly has to do with my own Bond biases, but a at least some has to do with conceptual inconsistencies and poor acting or casting (I'm never sure which causes performance problems).

First, the Bond presented in this movie could not and would not have later become any of the versions of Bond that we've seen up to now.

This Bond has no class, no humor, no panache ... in short, none of the things which I've enjoyed in other Bonds, with the exception of Timothy Dalton, a Bond incarnation I thought was pretty all around nasty, which I COULD believe Craig's Bond might become.

There was also much made in the reviews I read about what a pleasure it was to see a grittier, less technology-dependent Bond ... but then we started out with a fleeing terrorist who was imbued (I assume with wire work ... yawn) with literally superhuman escape powers. Yeah, it's definitely sweatier, but more realistic? I think not!

And, last but not least on my list of disappointments, there seemed to be an attempt to infuse some genuine feeling into Bond's relationship with his lady love (as there was in Fleming's novel) ... but personally I found the emotion portrayed by Brosnan in the death of Bond's old flame in Tomorrow Never Dies to be far more credible than Craig's declarations of love. To paraphrase Craig when he was asked if he wanted his martini shaken or stirred, "Do I look like I care?" Nope.

Ironically, Pierce Brosnan's comments about the Bond movies quoted on his IMDb page make me think that this is the Bond that he would would have preferred to play. Go figger.
1/10
Awful
jonas_ruteskog27 January 2007
The story is set to take place as Bond reaches his 00-status. This would logically be the early 60s since the first Bond movie to place in the early 60s. At the same time the story takes place in modern time, cellphones, the cold war has been over for some time and other modern electronical gadgets is used in the film.

Trying to make a at least somewhat believable story in these circumstances is awful. It's like making a film about world war II, only it takes place now, in modern time. Also M is played by Judi Dench who have played M in a few Bond movies back, but, if you recall the original M was a man and not a woman.

I wonder if the producers of this film have the brain of a two year old?
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Do I look like I give a damn?"
drewnes30 May 2021
This was the change that the series was needing at the time. Seriously, watch Die Another Day and then watch this. Daniel Craig does such a good job playing an impatient, rough around the edges James Bond. Mads Mikkelsen plays a pretty good villain and I like how this shows how Bond starts to become the Bond we know.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Too Violent for its PG-13 rating
roggio31 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film was way too violent for its rating. I will be the first to admit that I am on the record as saying that I am not as worried about violence as I am out sex and bad language in movies. But there is something different about the violence in this Bond film. When I was sitting at the theater, I could not put my finger on it, but I when I got home and started to related the way the violence had made me feel, I understood. The violence in Casino Royale is cruel. It is not so called action violence, or at least not all of it. It is cruel violence. It is violence done at least in part because the characters in the film enjoy hurting people.

Case in point, Bond endures an extended on screen torture scene in which he is strapped naked to a chair. (He's seen from the side.) Le Chiffre then swings a heavy rope to repeatedly hit Bond in the testicles.

The torture scene mentioned above has no business in a PG-13 rated film. It is exactly what I mean when I say that the violence in this movie is cruel. Plus, what Le Chiffre says to Bond is so sick, so sick, so sick that I cannot repeat it without feeling dirty. As a father of seven children, I would advise parents to never allow their children to see this movie. Mom and dad, if you let little Johnny see this film, you could scar him for life.
1/10
Crap. Just crap.
paulmcdonald-13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can't believe the comments I've read here. This was just a boring snooze of a movie. I had to keep reminding myself that "It's a James Bond" movie just to keep myself from leaving the theatre.

They didn't even play the James Bond theme until the credits! I suppose if it had been a "regular spy movie" it would be okay... but there was just no "James Bond" stuff in it.

I feel like I got ripped off and I want my money back.

For example: (spoilers) Judi Dench and M? In the beginning, when James gets "00" status? Really goes against continuity of the series.

The Bad Guy is killed by another bad guy who then steals all the money? When did that become an intriguing plot line?

No Q Branch? What's the point, then...
10/10
Best James Bond movie of all Time
vishwatej28614 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The best beginning action sequence of James Bond movie.

Now I have watched 25 James Bond movie from the Inception Dr. No till No Time to Die.

I could say no James Bond movie has been made like this. Casino Royale is a master piece from Story, Screenplay, editing, acting, Action, Romance. Yes it's a Romantic movie in the core. Characterisation of James Bond is written with such a heart in this movie. The vulnerability of the character you can see clearly. Which makes such a connection with the character I can't explain

Daniel Craig was Brilliant each and every scene. What grandeur James Bond Character portrait.

Eva Greene was so great that you will fell in love with her but hate her but love her. That's called great acting and characterisation.

Mads Mikkelsen was fantastic

Only one flaw. Not exactly flaw but weird editing I could say is one shot they used in the repeat, sequence at the car chase scene where James Bond crashes his car. And music was good I could say. Not great like Skyfall and No Time To Die.

As of now I have seen Casino Royale nearly 6 times.

Skyfall 5 times and No Time to Die 3 times.
1/10
The worst bond movie ever made
rferranti-110 May 2007
It's impossible to believe the actually made this movie. The first thirty minutes could be interesting (except of course for the main theme). After forty five minutes the movie became impossible to tolerate. Absolutely no action, no love sequence and no thriller.The actor is so ugly than became impossible to see the love sequence (better close the eye. The girls are absolutely ridicules compare to the females of the others movies. The only scene I enjoyed are the ones with "Giancarlo Giannini" th only true actor of this movie. Peraphs they decide to kill the saga.If they don't want to do bond anymore it would be simpler keep the money in the pocket instead of wasting'it for that kind of movie. If you have time to waste watch it but don't do it to much late in the evening or you must have an iron will to keep watching until end.
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The WORST Bond film ever
icyrain28 April 2007
What a pathetic film this is!--Relentlessly grim,morbid,sadistic,no sense of humor,no car chases,no special effects--Bond keeps making mistakes left and right--The first half hour of the film was awful,and barely improved--Daniel Craig,despite good acting,is all wrong as 007--a truly wretched film--I hope that there will not be any more Bond films with this guy--The series should have ended with Die Another Day,which was the greatest Bond film ever made--Pierce Brosnan was much better as 007 then Craig--All of Brosnan's films were good,even Sean Connery thought Brosnan was an excellent choice,but Connery didn't like Timothy Dalton--and I can't imagine him liking Daniel Craig either--this is a film you wish you never saw
16 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond re-imagined ends up being the greatest Bond movie ever made!
Lost_In_Translation_28 March 2019
When I saw this movie back in 2006 I hadn't really seen many of the Bond movies. I was a kid when Brosnan was Bond, so I saw all of those and enjoyed them as dumb action movies. I had only seen a few of the rest randomly throughout my life.

After seeing this I ended up watching most of the rest of the Bond movies and I can safely say this is THE BEST movie of them all. He has his ups and downs, most of the high points being early on with Connery, a few good ones scattered throughout the next 40 years, and a lot of mediocre to abysmal. This one starts Craig's tenure off in the biggest fashion possible, the best Bond movie ever made.

It's such a well made package all around. It's shot beautifully, the cinematography is like no other. The action is well choreographed and not shaky cam like most of the movies of the 2000's were. It's got the best ensemble cast of any Bond and secondary characters that you care about and have more depth than the usual stereotypes. It's got the best Bond girl ever, his first love. Craig might not be the "best" Bond, but him within the confines of the movie is pretty spectacular.

We're just all so damn lucky that the "reboot" or Bond ended being such a perfectly made package. There are some who criticize it's length as it sits at 2 hours and 20 mins, but I never felt it at all. After the main plot is resolved there is a secret that adds a bit on to the end, but it's so well done that you don't even care that it's another 30 mins added to the plot.

It's a shame that this banger was followed up with probably the WORST Bond movie. But it's redeemed thanks to Skyfall, but then again falters with Spectre. Here's hoping the whole every other movie is brilliant factor holds up and Craig's final movie is at least up to snuff with Skyfall and this.

I'll be interested to see what they do with Bond after Craig. He had two of the best movies during his time and it will be hard to see them making a movie that will ever top Casino Royale.
8/10
There's much enjoy about Craig's Bond
socrates9927 November 2006
Unlike some reviewers, I found Bond's antagonist, Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelsen, quite good, and the beautiful Eva Green not quite as entertaining as Bond's love interest, Vesper Lynd. But, of course, the key is Bond himself and Craig is quite good as the most athletic and sardonic Bond ever. Any guy should enjoy this film. But while watching I kept thinking, why does this film start in Africa? Are we finding it more and more difficult to find 'bad guys' with a bit of real life in them? Truth is, the English speaking world is no more immune to greed and violence than any other. Bond is best fighting true villains for a good cause and not merely for power and resources, as in real life. With the recent death and suspected murder of anti-Putin ex-KGB agent Litvinenko I kept thinking how ironic that as that man lay dying, he was complaining about how 'ruthless' the KGB is, while I and millions of others were reveling in Bond's make-believe ruthlessness. I guess in real life it's only fun when we're not the victim.

If the scripts can at least match this one, the Bond franchise is going to make a strong comeback. What amazing luck, finding Craig.
5/10
A Real Review
Turbobeatnic21 November 2006
Since no one else is stepping up from the "yes man" review of Casino Royale I will do it. First, I am a 45 year old male and long time fan of James Bond movies. Our wedding song was "For Your Eyes Only". Secondly, Casino Royale was a good movie that held your attention but not much else. It did have a different feel and flow to the movie and to no surprise, similar to Bond movies of the mid 1960's. There were expectations of mine that were not met while other events that should have either been found on the cutting room floor (maybe the computer's recycle bin) or not in the script to begin with. What happened to Bond's car with all the high tech gadgets? This car had a heart defibrillator! Then the car rolls 7 times due to a quick lane change and the car is not even equipped with an air bag! A few Bond movies ago, snow skis would pop out or further back, turn into a submarine and of course, the famous ejection seat. Is political correctness affecting James Bond? The only woman he had sex with was the one he fell in love with. Bond with only one woman? I know, it has to be a first. The body count had to be the lowest of any Bond film (although, there were some movies where it was ridiculously high). Still you should go see it. Everyone has to have a favorite and least favorite Bond Movie. Oh yeah, the new guy was pretty good.
1/10
This is not really a Bond movie
rjo-ad0127 December 2006
As an avid Bond watcher, and having watched each one several times, and having watched this one at a movie house just yesterday with three other interested persons, I'm considering moving on to another interest. This movie did not interest me in the least! It is not to be considered as high brow literary work but as interesting action movies. This one is interesting for the first few minutes and then looses my interest from then on. The storyline is difficult to understand and there are no outrages gadgets or other Bond like characteristics that I have been used to. Where were the incredibly beautiful women and sequences of action in ever changing locals? I was not only confused by the storyline but also bored by the characters. I was having trouble determining who were the good and bad guys. For a time I thought that Bond was the bad guy and couldn't figure out who was supposed to be Bond then. For the entire movie, where were the beautiful women? Some of the best ones were not the final one that Bond was after in actuality. As a final note of confusion, what about that supposed largest plane in the world! What was the point of that sequence? It could have been left out of the movie entirely and it wouldn't have made any difference at all. Final comment, this one was worse than any movie that I've considered the worst, so there to the writers, producers and directors of this mess!
Hard hitting Bond film, Craig is fantastic!
long-ford19 January 2009
This is an impressive Bond film, with a star-making turn by the superb Daniel Craig. Craig brings an impressive dynamism and menace to the role and eclipses almost all previous Bonds (except perhaps Connery). The film's structure is a bit uneven with three different acts. The first part is more of a traditional Bond film, with some explosive action set pieces. Specially noteworthy is the stupendous stunt work in a long, meticulously choreographed chase. Then there is a long and surprisingly involving love story with 007 falling head over heels in love. The last act is the finest with betrayal and a heartbreaking death scene. Judi Dench reprises her role as M and has some fiery exchanges with Daniel Craig. Highly recommended, although, be warned, its surprisingly violent.

Overall 9/10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
going against the grain, i thought it was dreadful!
cavewoman194829 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
86 out of 180 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
one of the all-time worst. daniel craig looks like a washed-up prizefighter--even has the cauliflower ears. and he's so bulked up (muscle-bound) that his head looks too small for his body. plus he has zero charisma. i understand everyone else they wanted turned down the part, and he was last choice. then they had to cast a lot of really ugly people to try to make him look good by comparison (it doesn't work). the plot is senseless and sloppy. spoilers coming: bond is sent to beat le chiffre at poker so he can't pay off his debts and will have to cooperate with mi5 and the cia. but he's already broke! why not skip the poker game and just bring him in right away? then we would have been spared those long, boring poker sessions. and when bond was poisoned in the middle of the match: who poisoned him, and why? it was never mentioned again! lots of going from one country to another for no particular reason except to show off the scenery and add even more time to this interminably dull movie.
4/10
Tedious, predictable and boring
nh1212a21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, I'm in the minority here, but I genuinely disliked this film. It lost me after an opening overwrought overdone overlong chase scene and IMHO the film went downhill after that. There's no real plot other than Bond gambles against some bad guys and wins (the conflict there was done much better in the book 50 years ago) and I don't buy Daniel Craig as Bond. He'd be better as a villain. He lacks the charm of Brosnan-Moore-Connery & because of that the wry humor of traditional Bond films is missing. Missing also are the babes. The current batch in this film just didn't do it for me (almost by their complete absence) and could we please have a memorable villain again, like Dr. No, or Goldfinger or Oddjob. Okay, okay, those are dated references, but you know what? I went to see Blood Diamond at a WGA Screening in Beverly Hills the day before Casino Royale and THAT was a better Bond film than this is and frankly Leo D'Cap would be a better Bond. I'll make anyone an early bet that while this film will do okay it will ultimate disappoint the studio. Something's seriously amiss here. Well, as WC Fields famously once said, "Just one man's opinion."
1/10
This movie works better than Niquil!
kevinxofthefoi15 October 2007
I read another comment about how boring this movie is, and I had to see for myself; and sure enough, it turned out to be so boring that it put me to sleep. I can't believe I wasted 5 miles of gasoline to ride my bike to rent this sedative of a movie.

This has certainly done a disservice to the Bond series. Mike Meyers should have played James Bond, at least then we could have laughed throughout the movie.

This movie should be played at childcare facilities for nap time. Anyone who claims that this is the best bond film ever, must have been referring to its ability to put any viewer to sleep.....(snoring).

I can't emphasize enough how disappointed I am. I have lost my desire to ever watch a film produced by or directed by Anthony Waye, Martin Campbell, Michael G. Wilson, or Barbara Broccoli.

Didn't anyone have the courage to suggest more action? That's what I can't figure! Was the budget cut so low, that they had to eliminate any explosions? The best scene is the poker game, that threw me, as far as who was going to win, between Monsieur Le Chiffre, and James Bond. But, for a better and more intense poker game movie, I recommend "Lucky You", starring Eric Bana, and Drew Barrymore.

I hope to find this film located in the "Dead boring" section of all rental stores.
Fails to escape from the clichés
gundognc11 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The films starts fairly well with a comparatively (for Bond) brutal fight scene and assassination, told in grainy faux black and white. For a short while it feels as if Bond has been revitalised, as if we are seeing a new side to an old and tired character. No gadgets, no Q and no Moneypenny is a good thing and served to reinforce this impression. Sadly the film fails to deliver on its early promise.

We are soon introduced to the villain of the piece, a nasty banker called le Chiffre ("the Number", for those who wondered) and it is here that I started getting the feeling that the film was beginning to loose it. Mads Mikkelsen does a good job of portraying le Chiffre. He doesn't rant and rave and avoids the over the top attitude that has characterised so many a Bond villain. He does, however, sport a scar across his left eye and a tendency to weep blood at crucial moments. If Casino Royale is supposed to be an updating of the old, camp, Bond ethos - why, oh why did we have to have a facially scarred villain - the old pantomime is there, even if Mikkelsen does his best to avoid it in his acting.

Daniel Craig (Bond) is good. He eschews the silky smoothness of Brosnan and the Valium calm of Moore, combining something of Dalton's self-loathing with Connery's laconic sociopathy. The result is good. He portrays a Bond you can just about believe in. I cannot speak as to whether he can "smolder" successfully on-screen, to me he looked as if he was slightly constipated - but maybe the girls in the audience were lapping it up.

Eva Green (Vesper Lynd) seemed to have got the best part in the film, and played it very well. She was icy and vulnerable - both convincingly and reminded me, in a way, of a young Lauren Bacall. I was surprised and impressed that the film-makers managed to avoid the obvious vespa/bicycle/riding gag implicit in her name.

*spoiler*

The is very little subtlety to the by-the-numbers story and the film feels padded to meet the length requirements. I felt at least 20 minutes could happily have been cut. The story involves a banker plotting to blow up a plane to drive down airline stock prices, raising the value of derivatives contracts he has bought with his terrorist client's money, and then having to enter a poker contest to make up his losses when this plot is foiled by Bond. Some effort was taken to make the poker game suspenseful but it felt flat and lifeless. Bond ends up winning everything with a straight flush off the river card (as I recall). Given that Bond spends a lot of time spouting off that poker is a game of skill and reading your opponent the fact that he wins on a 1 in 26 fluke chance seems a little foolish. Bond gets tortured in a scene that doesn't seem to have the courage of its convictions, and comes complete with an enormous deus ex machina. The remainder is visible a mile off and hardly feels worth the wait.

*/spoiler*

The script was fairly good (at least by the standards of a Bond film) with some good quipping between Craig and Green. It could have used some more continuity checking however. There is a moment when Bond orders the worlds most complicated cocktail from a barman, off the top of his head, much impressing the people around him. Five minutes later he is in a public bar ordering the trademark vodka martini "Shaken or stirred?" asks the waiter "Do I look like I care." responds Bond. I don't mind whether Bond cares if his martinis are shaken or stirred but it strikes me that someone who can order a 10 ingredient cocktail off the top of his head probably would. Thus the later line about not caring about whether the cocktail is shaken or stirred seems incongruous and crowbared in to make the audience laugh. This is just one in a fairly long list of slight errors that grate if you cannot get caught up in the film.

All in all this felt like a triumph of mediocrity. It isn't bad, but it isn't that good either. By comparison with the last two Brosnan films (which seemed to have been directed by an MTV obsessed teenager with ADD) it was fantastic - but being fantastic by comparison does not make it a great film. I would advise people to see it, after all I seem to be in a minority in disliking it, but frankly I'd wait to rent it as it didn't have anything to make me feel that my cinema cash was well spent.

In the end if you want to see a good low-key European spy thriller watch a Bourne film. Casino Royale wants to have it's cake and eat it. It wants to have the raw energy of Bourne with the glamour of Mission Impossible and in the end fails to best either.

Casino Royale is likely to be enjoyed by everyone except:

1) the hard core "Camp" Bond fans, who think that a James Bond without a safari suit and a watch that is a laser cutter, car remote control, bomb detonator and cold food storage device is not worthy of the name; and,

2) those (like me) who think that Ronin and the Bourne films (along with classics like The Ipcress File) are the height of the spy thriller genre.
4/10
Modernized..good or bad?
karinapropina22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was really excited to see this movie especially since Daniel Craig was to be James, but as the movie progressed I lost interest. The beginning starts in black and white, which was a nice difference. Also starts out with a nice action sequence. Although as I was watching the chase scene it seemed all but to familiar...anyone seen District B-13? It has a very similar chase scene. I would say after the first half hour the movie starts to digress and the movie's pace is slower. The Bond girls are not the best looking and you get to see more of Bond half dressed than them. The movie gives you a way to long look at Bond falling in love, you really wish action would happen soon! Daniel Craig was a good Bond with a bad plot! They should stick to what Bond does best, and quit trying to make him sensitive. The humor is quirky as always and I thank them for at least keeping Bond's humor. You do not get to see Q or Money Penny,no awesome gadgets either. Wait till the video comes out, you might not want to spend more than $7.00.
9/10
"Casino Royale" really is the best Bond film since "Goldfinger"...
MovieAddict201623 November 2006
And as a more serious and darker sort of film, dare I say it's superior.

Of course, "Goldfinger" was the greatest mix of the Bond formula: outlandish but serious; funny but deadly; beautiful girls and iconic villains.

Casino is a bit more down-to-earth apart from a ridiculous opening (which made some of the scenes in "Die Another Day" look downright plausible). It's definitely a product of its times and is really nothing like most of the previous Bond films. It makes fun of a lot of the previous clichés: "Do I look like I give a damn?!" when asked whether he wants his drink shaken or stirred; and then making fun of innuendo-names such as Pussy Galore in another scene when he jests that his female co-operative should use the alias "Mrs. Broadchest." It makes the others all look like comedic spins on similar material. Kind of like the difference between Burton's Batman and Nolan's. Burton's were more joyous and campy - whereas Nolan's was a dark, stirring vision. Ditto here.

Craig is very good. I enjoyed Brosnan in the role for the types of films he was making, but apart from GoldenEye I thought his Bond movies were dire. The last was terrible - Halle Berry and face-shifting villains and invisible cars? Bleh.

Craig matches Connery in terms of the way he approaches the character. The only real flaw is that Craig is not exactly what one would call a typical leading man, looks-wise - so when he walks around getting flirtatious attention from women in the movie it does seem strange. This isn't knocking his acting abilities, but part of the icon that is James Bond involves his renowned handsome looks - and Craig looks more like one of the previous film's Czech villains. But forget that - he nailed the actual character, and turned all the other portrayals since Connery's into utter jokes. Compare Roger Moore to the dark, edgy personality in this film - the difference is striking.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it. It's the best Bond in about forty years, give or take. I really grew tired with the past few Bond films and thought they had hit a dead-end trying to keep up with the overblown action spectacles like xXx - but this is a great return to form and, surprise surprise, one of the best pictures of '06 - a remarkable achievement considering what series this film is from. Not often do any Bond films make the critics' top ten lists, but according to the website RottenTomatoes.com, Casino Royale received better reviews than The Departed.

The ending, by the way, was simply great. I will be very interested to see where this series is taken in the future.
1/10
Better stay at home
grc199625 November 2006
I have never seen a Movie like that which has been called James Bond 007 ... you better stay at home and save your money!

The main actor is not been able to set the character of a Bond figure and his jokes are awful.

The face and charisma is comparable to Kermit the frog, he better die in action as soon as possible.

I WANT MY CONNERY BACK ... Brosnan is useful too.

The story is even more bad than i suggested, no real action and no real script (next time please drink after you finished the script, please)...

Hope the next will contain more Bond in it!
3/10
Casino Royale
andybasildon27 December 2006
Just seen this poor attempt at re-working what is deemed as the poorest Bond movie. And i have to say although its more a love story than a bond movie. It has to be the worst bond movie i have ever seen. For reference the likes of Live And Let Die, probably in my opinion being one of the best. Its one advert after another, seems everyone has a certain type of phone and drive around on Henry's finest although these days seemingly not the colour black. No Q to explain the gadgets in bonds Aston, which appears for no apparent reason. Dame Judy Dench has never quite got into the her role as M i don't think, and this performance is just as lack luster. Daniel Craig i think "might" eventually be a reasonably Bond, but he will have to work much harder and be blessed with a decent screen play before he does. Overall, too much hype too many blatant adverts, not enough "bondish almost childish" fooling around which makes bond, bond. It one for the DVD collection - only to say you have the full set on the shelf. Andy.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond lives!
Monkeyboy1212125 January 2012
I just watched this film and i thought it was brilliant! Although i am not a die-hard James Bond fan but I have watched my fair share of Bond films. Firstly, Daniel Craig is a brilliant Bond in his own way, of course.

Daniel Craig plays Bond as cold, charming agent; which is nice to see because it gives the story a realistic undertone because if James Bond were a true character then he would have to be if he roams around the world for Her Majestys Secret Service killing terrorists and madmen! The story is set almost like an origin story where Bond has just finished attaining his double 'o' status and embarks on a complex storyline involving a villain and a couple of organisations in the backwaters, the settings are nice and again Craig plays a very cool but stern Bond. He encounters many challenges and he doesn't easily beat them all at first and even struggles in some tasks, all playing towards a more realistic Bond.

There are no flashy gadgets unless you count the Aston Martin that Bond drives around but it compensates by giving some raw action scenes like the initial fight scene where Bond flushes his enemy's head several times! This new franchise for 007 is definitely worth seeing and it is great to see how well Craig fits into the role! His cold cruel Bond really plays well here and the raw action is brilliant! Go see it!
10/10
One of the rare modern Bonds that deserves a 10. Very possibly among the top 5 Bond films ever.
balder77710 November 2021
This is an atypical Bond film.

Although there are great action sequences, the focus of the film is not on action, but intellect, and great characters & thrilling sequences (of gambling, etc). This is not a Bond film with an insane villain in a Swiss ski resort. This is a cold calculated spy story, with financial intrigues.

Daniel Craig is magnificent as Bond, and Eva Green has chemistry with Craig that is authentic in ways other Bond girls never were, which will continue to drive the story in later Craig Bond films.

This film will be displeasing for people who like the classic Bond film formula (action, ridiculous locations & gadgets, etc). However I consider it a masterpiece of a spy & Bond film. I have watched every Bond film to date (including NTTD this year), and consider Casino Royale to be the best Bond film ever (alongside Goldfinger).
1/10
The Legacy of James Bond is over.
randym010322 November 2006
Casino Royale is by far, the worst Bond movie ever made. It has nothing to do with Bodn at all. The movie is primarily a long love story with an hour of poker. The opening credit cartoon movie does nothing but shatter the tradition of Bond credit scenes. He drives a 1964 Aston Martin and an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish for his Bond car. Never before had he driven the same Bond car, but in this movie, He drives two of them for the second time. Why? To put flashy car into a movie with a worthless plot. Director obviously knew he would have to make up for his horrible movie with a good car. Next, how is a movie that takes place before all of the other Bond movies, take place in present times? The entire time-line is thrown off. How can he become 00 status 30 years after he already had it? Just does not make any sense. The Bond girl was not even that attractive. She is just a poor version of a Katie Holmes look alike. The horrible lack of the true Bond feel makes this the worst Bond film ever.
20 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Could have been better
raypdaley18215 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This gets 4 purely for the action sequences and the locations. In his 1st outing as the new James Bond we have Daniel Craig, so hired because he'd done similar stuff in the film Layer Cake.

This is set before he acquires 00 status and seemingly working as a gun for hire but under government control.

Craig doesn't look the part, he's far too muscular and top heavy to be the James Bond style character I've grown up with. There's a lot more violence and aggression in the fights in this film (and a wicked HUGE goof where he's hit by the machete, taped up and the scar magically vanishes later).

This is certainly no-where as good as the Peter Sellars spoof version. This version of James Bond is certainly no gentleman like all his previous incarnations, he's very rash and hot headed. Far too quick to react to things he could have got out of using his brain instead of his brawn.

The story is overly complicated. Once he's got his 00 status he's following something called Ellipse but that story just tails off into no-where once he catches up with Le Chiffre and is promptly forgotten about.

Suddenly Le Chiffre is a huge bad guy for no explained reason and James must gamble government money against him to bankrupt him into seeking government protection as it's his clients money Le Chiffre is using to play with.

So the scene is set for the meeting at Casino Royale with a pretty female agent from the US Treasury Department (for eye candy of course as this seems to be the 1st Bond film without an actual Bond girl) to mind the purse strings.

We meet James's contact who later turns out to be a traitor working for Le Chiffre, but he still wins the game with money given to him by the CIA in return for the capture of Le Chiffre.

There are a ton of plot twists where we discover various traitors (like James's contact is a traitor), double and triple crosses and the film is at least 35 minutes too long because of these being fully explored.

There was no need for the female Treasury agent to be a traitor and her double cross plot was impossible to follow and far too complex for it's own good. Capture of her and James's pursuit, capture, torture & escape only to fall in love with her all seemed tacked on as after thoughts to the script which for me petered out after Le Chiffre lost the money.

The film should have ended there to be honest, it would have been a much better movie if it had.

James is double crossed by the female Treasury agent who sends the money to another account to save her hostage boyfriend, another seemingly tacked on after thought to the script.

The whole sinking house in Venice was good but pointless as we had no idea who the guy with the money was and the ending was really weak.
4/10
Bond is dead !
hferreira9011 December 2006
I was unbelievably disappointed movie,this in not a bond movie , end of discussion. I went to see a movie , not a commercial of Ford products! Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past.Children with guns in Africa !!!! All Inclued hotels in Bahamas !!! Bond in Love !!! Terrorists that we don't understand the point or objective!!! Wereis the charm? This is a chip trilogy that they want to make , James Bond is beauty , charm , glamor, gadgets , the traditional soundtrack,the fashion, the bond girls,Bond does get injured .

Sometimes when we want to innovate ,we burn our past!

Nothing else to say!
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Is it Die Hard, Rambo or MacGyver? No its Bond.
cinematic_aficionado26 November 2006
Sheer disappointment. Unsatisfactory plot, mediocrity in casting choices and a legendary spy who has transformed into an ultra masculine one man kills all show. Looking at this film I could not help asking myself: what ever happened to James Bond? Where is his sophistication, his charm, and why has he given up the berretta for a machine gun and, last but not least, whatever happened to Bond's "proper" British accent and why does he suddenly sound so hopelessly middle class.

Furthermore it seems that Bond went casual. From tailor made suits we were accustomed to he now appeared wearing T-shirts and tops you pick in high street during the sale season stacked in a basket with a "5 dollars" price tag attached.

Who can possibly conceive to use as Bond someone who looks/sounds/acts more like a builder rather than an educated naval officer with high IQ. Not to mention the brief soppy romance thing he had going with Vesper Lynd. Would a true Bond spend ten minutes underwater trying to rescue a girl that had actually betrayed him? What ever happened to "I certainly would not have killed you before" (Live and let die) or "I never miss" (The world is not enough).

Had I not been an avid Bond fan I would have said: I'm not watching another film of this franchise.

In the ever hungrier for money Hollywood the standards are nothing but falling, but as long at it makes the bucks they will go on producing rubbish such as this instalment.

It is surprising that people were wondering how successful a blonde Bond would be but it turned out this was the least of a genuine fan's concerns.

So all of you Hollywood executives find a new Bond with Connery's charm and Moore's class and stop insulting our intelligence with the likes of Craig who at best can be valuable as an extra in an Indiana Jones type of film.
1/10
Bond died in the 80's. Live with that
dedleon27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
19 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enter Casino Royale – The only way The producers could escape the inevitable comparison between their movie and the new kids on the block, is going more REALISTIC, i.e. if you cannot beat them, beat other people. The solution was to make Bond more like another type of spy movies which is much more realistic, even brutally so. Theirs is a reality where people are more frail, no big action scenes, the scenery is grayer, the chases are done in small streets with ordinary cars, every blow can kill, every car accident kills half of the passengers, you cannot trust your bosses, and the world is filled with ordinary clerk-like people living their small lives and pettiness and intrigue rule the day. This is basically the ANTI-BOND type of spy movie or novel (whose most notable writer is John Le Carre). 'The Bourne Identity' belongs to that genre. The advantage of this kind of movie is that, due to the overarching sense of frailty, every punch, every car chase, every gun shot can cause a great amount of suspense, since you don't find yourself comparing it to the more fantastic action movies. Think about that: if in real life a pugilist suffers a heavy punch it's a reason to worry (if you like him), but in a Van Dam movie you know it's just getting him madder and it doesn't raise the same amount of concern.

O.k. so after deciding that this is the direction they wanted to take Bond to, they had to cast a new kind of Bond – Enter DC. DC is short, blond and looks like the villain, he is certainly not the Bond of the movies and, as one who have read some of these books, is not Fleming's Bond (and since Fleming's books were crap - the man wasn't a literary genius, having a Fleming's Bond would have just made things worse). But THAT IS THE POINT Craig is supposed to be the anti-Bond, a John Le Caree's Bond. But of course the producers won't say that, and given that they clearly cannot say he's the movies' Bond they say he's Fleming's. They do that because they don't want to give ammunition to the anti DC crowd, because 'going back to the origins' always sounds impressive and because they want to cash in on the success and prestige of the previous movies (while crapping on them at the same time – It's like the alien in 'Men In Black' who put on the skin of the man he killed, thus both defiling him and pretending to be him). So the anti-DC crowd are right: He is NOT the classic Bond, but If they think that casting a male model type (the manly type that does the cigarettes or designer suits ads) and having him do the same old stuff is going to make a good movie are deluding themselves - for the reasons I've already mentioned.

O.k. did it work? Predictably, NO.

First of all, I am not a big fan of the John Le Carre (JLC) style and find it too anachronistic (also died in the 80's), The Bourne Identity is fine, but I really don't understand the hoopla. Now, moving Bond totally into that direction will really take the Bondiness out of Bond, it will take all the distinctive features out, and will be Bond only in name. So they couldn't go all the way, which is the main problem of the movie – it is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea: on one hand, in order to preserve the Bondiness they have to have the outlandish action scenes, bigger than life stories, colorful characters etc. which again brings us back to the realm of the CGI movies and, again, causes Bond to look very bad. On the other hand, making it more JLC like, takes some of the unserious charm of it, the winking to the crowd; bringing a gray and non-suave man like Craig denies us of being around someone cool, good looking and with roguish sparkle in his eyes, and everyone would rather be around that kind of person than with the DC kind. CR tries to have the best of both worlds but remains with none. Here is an example: in the movie DC has to swerve with his car and it overturns, in the old JB movies he would be unscathed, in a JLC book he would die or spend nine months in hospital, here he is a bit shaken. So we are denied the charm of the indestructible Bond, but are not instilled with a sufficient sense of frailty to really feel afraid for him – a double miss. So no, this is a good movie IF IT WERE 1986, but IN 2006 it's not; and it didn't save the series, you can't save it. The old Bond cannot compete with the CGI movies, and you cannot make Bond too JLC or it won't be Bond. Bond should go the way of the movie-musicals and the Westerns, both genres are all but dead today, and for good reasons. They cannot be modernized without changing their distinctive features, hence they cannot be modernized.

Still, is it the best Bond ever? Well, since Bond depends very much on special effects, then I'd guess 'Octopussy' is the best (like I said, JB died in the 80's) if you compensate for technological ability (like you do for inflation) then 'Goldfinger' is. In a sense, it's like asking 'Is it the best Commodore 64 game ever?', it might have meant something in the 80's, but today, in the age of PS3, X-Box and Wii, Who cares.
2/10
It makes me sad to see James Bond become such a creep
qck125 December 2008
What I think made James Bond so special was that there James Bond exuded a lot of class. It was Sean Connery who set the initial tone for what James Bond would represent for the next 40 years, and it is this character that I think made 007 special. This is now lost with Daniel Craig, who does not look or act the part. Basically he plays someone who is inconsiderate of others and thug. I can better see him in this role as somebody that has spent time in prison, not someone that went to English prep schools. The English prep school feel is what gave James Bond charm. He also plays a character that shows extreme disrespect for other people: he breaks into M's house, he destroys somebody's car, breaks into an embassy and causes mass destruction--on and on. Now James Bond is just another of 100's of other spies that have been played in the movies: has lost his special esprit. There is not even the bit of humor that also made James Bond special, and a certain weakness. Looking back on James Bond I have to say that Sean Connery created a great James Bond, and Pierce Brosnan continued the tradition better than any other actor. Don't go to the movie because it is a James Bond movie, go to it because it is another exciting (and forgettable) action film; and it is too much like all the rest. Maybe we will be lucky and James Bond will return after Daniel Craig is canned (hopefully he will only last through Quantum of Solace), but maybe the world is not longer as innocent, and change has made the class of Sean Connery's Bond obsolete.
5/10
Too Politically Corrected
topdowndan4 December 2006
This is the first Bond move I've seen without naked female silhouettes in the opening credits. The leading lady is a complete feminist with a huge chip on her shoulder. The torture scene was a feminist dream come true. No man would ever conceive of whacking a (hunky, nude, attractive to women and gay men) guy's nuts.

They made this movie to appeal to women. I don't go to a James Bond movie to see a chick flick. I could have done without any of the standard chick flick elements... the mental battle of "who's more perceptive", the sappy lines, the male bashing, the discovery of tenderness under a macho male shell. I should have known something was up when they put a Matthew McConaghey preview ahead of it. Did anyone else notice that Barbara Broccoli, not Albert, produced this thing?
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Daniel Craig ruined the franchise
VinceGambini14 April 2019
I keep this real short because no matter what I say, Craig fans will disagree. I understand that Bond evolves. That's how it was done for decades and it always worked. Until they picked the wrong guy. Craig simply doesn't cut it. And sadly, Casino Royale is just the first in a series of new Bonds that proves this point every minute. He just isn't a credible or likable Bond. This plain vanilla acting, the lack of any chemistry with female leads, the complete lack of humour: it's all wrong. Before Craig took over, Bond films were highly anticipated events, watched and rewatched and loved across generations. That era is over. Craig's legacy is that with him, the films became what none of the other instalments ever were: boring and painful to sit through. We're now supposed to take these plots seriously? Ugh! Bonds are meant to be fun, full stop.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig, Daniel Craig...The Best Bond in Years!
george.schmidt20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CASINO ROYALE (2006) ***1/2 Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Isaach De Bankole, Jesper Christensen, Ivana Milicevic, Sebastien Foucan. Brilliant jump-start to the James Bond franchise by re-booting to the beginning in the first of the Ian Fleming stories with a new Bond (Craig, perhaps the best actor as 007) gaining his license to kill on his first assignment to stop an international banker (baddie Mikkelsen) from bankrolling a high-stakes poker game to continue lending support to global terrorism, with hottie financial analyst Green (perhaps the best Bond babe to date to boot!) in tow. Handled with great aplomb by director Martin Campbell (no slouch to the series with his intro of Pierce Brosnan in "GoldenEye") who skillfully keeps the action riveting (the opening foot chase is a real hoot), the editing snappy (kudos to Stuart Baird) and the storyline from sagging (the screenplay by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Paul Haggis bogs things down in the extraneous card game) with enough humor, death-defying gags and mostly for having faith in Craig, who brings a Steve McQueen, craggy handsomeness and under his well-chiseled physique a surprising lethal weapon: a heart. Can't wait for the next!
2/10
Cromagnon in a suit. worst Bond in years
cwallace-1322 March 2007
I had the chance to see the new Casino Royale and cannot see what people see in it. Daniel Craig plays the worst Bond since Roger Moore. His character demonstrates just how much style and wit Connery had playing the part (my mum says that in his school days, Connery used to have his thugs pick on my uncle). The new character is an automaton, from the ridiculously long foot chase in which both he and the pursued are seemingly able to fly to the monotone, monosyllabic dialogue. The villain is of no consequence (and looks as though he is going to cry at any moment throughout the movie).

For action, the fuel tanker chase is great but let's face it, most people will go down after ninety kicks in the face! The drive in the Aston Martin DB-5 lasts 3 seconds. The "chase" in the Aston DB-S lasts only a little longer when he flips the Aston as though he's driving a "Smart" car.

The highpoint of the film is the soundtrack by David Arnold who weaves a new Bond theme out of the old Bond threads, creating variations on traditional Bond thematics. Chris Cornell's vocals on the main theme are perfect and reflect the shift in Bond's attitude.

Daniel Craig is not to blame for this film as he's quite good but the direction that they've chosen to take with Bond as a not too clever, socially inept, cellphone addicted steroid grown killing machine is disturbing although it may better reflect their new target demographic.

Save your money and watch Daniel Craig in Layer Cake. That character might have made a better Bond.
9/10
007 Royale
michaelarmer8 April 2020
Daniel Craig's debut as Bond and its all change from the last, only Judi Dench remains, it's like when Brosnan took over, they had great casts during Brosnan's tenure, and it seems they've done it again? It's a retro change though, Casino Royale is the first Ian Fleming book, and they have made this film the same, with Bond just starting as a 00 agent, they even made the intro in Black & White as if it is in a time before colour film, so it's a prequel but made in a modern era, so conflicting with the retro feel and Judi Dench is in the role of M as she was in the last so not making it a retro fit. Felix Leiter is in it as well, but a black feller acting the part, there is no chance a black man could be a leading CIA officer in the fifties/early sixties, so that makes it a strange mix.

But nevertheless it is a great film, lots of drama and intrigue, more gritty, there are a few quips, but not silly ones, not much in gadgets, and more on human interaction and dialogue, a lot more, the action scenes are good when they are there, its very well directed and excellent photography, with great scenery at Lake Como, sorry - Montenegro, yeah they faked the locations, only Venice, London and the Bahamas was authentic, Miami, Uganda, Madagascar and Montenegro were all filmed elsewhere. The music was ok, as was the title song.

The acting is top notch, everyone is good, particularly Craig, Mikkelson, Dench and Green and despite my criticism of Felix Leiter being the wrong colour, Jeffery White acted a lot better than any before. And a blast from the past, Tsai Chin who played Bond Girl Ling in 'You Only Live Twice' is back, at the card tables, with a 39 year gap.

Most of the Bond themes are gone, even the silhouette titles have changed to animation, however we do have a big casino scene and helicopters, the crime organisation is known as Quantum but is really SPECTRE. But no Q or Moneypenny, it is not supposed to have any gadgets, but Bond did have a miniature defibrillator. Cars:- Aston Martin DB5, Aston Martin DBS can it get any better, and now we know how Bond got his first Aston martin, he won it off a baddie in a game of cards, and also how he discovered his Vodka Martini. No henchmen in this, and only one Bond Girl, no.63 Vesper Lynd played by Eva Green (French) she is not the most beautiful but certainly the most passionate. Another prominent woman was Solange played by Caterina Murino (Sardinia) bond was trying to seduce her to get information but when he got what he wanted he left before the sex, so not a Bond Girl, but more beautiful than Vesper.

Despite the mixed retro/modern fix and false locations it is still a great film, on a par with Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Goldeneye, I would have given it a 10 if it wasn't for the false locations and confusing retro/modern angle.
10/10
It's amazing what story and good acting will get you
krael7423 November 2006
The beginning of the end for the Bond series was when the schtick began to overtake the story. Though generally entertaining, guys like Roger Moore, Dalton and Brosnan didn't have the swagger or acting talent to save the series from its descent into a parody of itself. Story took a back line to expensive casting. Acting took a back seat to looks. Gadgets and high dollar special effects were left as the only leg the series had to stand on, and in this era of excess, that leg wasn't a very strong one.

Daniel Craig is a workmanlike actor. He doesn't look the traditional part of Bond, yet this in itself makes him a shrewd choice to breathe new life into this franchise. He brings back to the Bond character the sobering fact that the man is a killer, and that his legendary confidence didn't come without its dark side. From the start, this movie dives right into a gritty, brutal groove. What tongue-in-cheek is salvaged is delivered with the sort of finesse Connery once brought this role. Real emotions and drama make their way back into the franchise, and the high dollar sports cars, tailored suits and designer martinis gain life in the backdrop, rather than serving the dominating effect of past efforts. The performances all around are commendable. Craig plays Bond without a care to what came before, yet with such confidence there is no doubt he is Bond. A brutal, headstrong, arrogant and yet troubled Bond, a dark Bond, the sort of Bond that might have been forged into the man he eventually becomes. If the Bond franchise is to be saved, this film was exactly the sort of remedy required. Bond has returned as a vital, interesting character rather than a glorified comic book hero. It works so well. While I can't say with assurance this is the best of the franchise, I find myself very hard pressed to name its superior. It certainly makes the Bond movies of the last three decades almost forgettable, and it has me looking forward to the next installment of a series I assumed all but dead many years ago. To all involved, a triumphant job!
8/10
A rare reboot success that saved the franchise from mediocrity
chrisgriffintv2 October 2021
Casino Royale saved the franchise's legacy after the mostly underwhelming run of Pierce Brosnan. It was a necessary reboot allowing the filmmakers to build a new story arc with a younger, less light-hearted bond and stepping aside from the ridiculousness gadgetry of the past few films.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The new Bond falls short of filling the shoes of Connery or Brosnan
ssvikas23 November 2006
It had been a long wait for a Bond movie after Die Another Day four years ago. After Pierce Brosnan had done his job deftly and established himself possibly as the best Bond after Sean Connery, newcomer Daniel Craig had very big shoes to fill. Four years had raised the expectations and the fact that this movie is the last of the Fleming originals to be screened made the wait even more difficult. Well, who knew that this would be a forgettable flick for the Bond Fans!

Casino Royale, incidentally the first Bond story is being rehashed after there were 20 predecessors. Here, bond is introduced as a new promotee to '00' status. Tracking terrorists leads him to many operators and then to their banker Le Chiffre who bet in the stock market just went bad is planning to raise $150Mn in a poker game. MI6 assigns 007 to play the game with a view that if Le Chiffre lost, his clients would hunt him down. He is joined in his mission by the pretty government agent Vesper Lynd.

To begin with Casino Royale had a bad script. No, I aren't pointing fingers at Fleming who gave to the world the larger than life bond, but the scriptwriters who modified it to suit the present world, i.e., post cold-war and post 9/11 terrorist attacks, the writers have definitely forgotten to keep the story in track. Firstly, a story of a card game makes the story devoid of gadgets & guns. Secondly, too much of romance is injurious to the image of the Bond we all know. Third, a mix-up of these two leaves the story nowhere. Music sucks too! The signature Bond tune of Monty Norman was grossly missing too!

Coming to the New Bond, the rugged & blonde Bond, I felt he was a let down from all the earlier Bonds who were stylish and smooth operators with both gadgets & women. True, Craig has a better chiseled body than his older counterparts, but did the producers miss out that brawn over brain doesn't make a Bond. I guess there are numerous other men in Hollywood with a similar body and better looks. Why only Daniel Craig; Plain luck?

Well this movie has a rating of 8.2 on IMDb, highest rating for a Bond flick, the closest being 7.8 for Connery's Goldfinger. Well, if it's working this well at the BO, I'm sure there must be many who must have liked Bond's ruggedness, his skills without the assistance of gadgets or just his body or the romance element! I don't know what to say. The discerning audience needs to rethink before they dish out their cash to see this flick!
5/10
Bond. Stupid Bond
rpreda20057 December 2006
We cannot talk about James Bond the way we talk about all the action movies. The director's imagination is, or it should be, limited by Ian Flemming's books. There are four milestones of a James Bond movie: the personality of the actor who plays Agent 007 (his appearance and look y compris), beautiful women (never less than 2), spectacular (and super-equipped) cars and gadgets (the microwave watch, the vacuum cleaner pen, the dram fire cuff-links etc). Anyone who chooses to see a James Bond movie wants to see all these things. The catchy action is, of course, a „plus", but not a „must": no matter what, all children in this world know that The Good will eventually beat The Bad. And the rest is... details. Applying these on the last Bond we discover that even if it is a „prequel" (meaning the first mission of the main character as agent 00), Casino Royale is the worst episode of the series and the arguments are annoyingly visible. First of all, the Daniel Craig choice is at least controversial. Even if, in my opinion, this is the only goal of the movie, people say that Craig's face recommends him to be not more than Bond's bodyguard. Next, about the dangerous women: enormous gap! De gustibus non disputandum, but Campbell can take Eva Green home with him for all I care, this movie is not the place for her to be. And, even more, she is not even showing in bikini, not to mention original Eve's suit! Another disillusion: the cars. We're back to Aston Martin, a good choice, but the DBS model is smashed like hell after only few seconds of chase run (and besides the travel size defibrillator, we can't find any other option in it). Finally, the gadgets: absolutely none whatsoever! Considering the above mentioned, the two and a half hours of movie are really torturing the spectator who will not appreciate the final scene of submerging a venetian palace (which required high costs and efforts and produced almost no effect) and will surely forget all about the initial spectacular scene of chase; in the end, looking back at the movie as a whole, this scene is having the same effect as that of an adrenaline injection in a dead body. So, Casino Royale is cheap. So cheap! James Bond must be looked for in another movie. „Crank", for example.
8/10
Amazing reboot to the Bond franchise.
theshadow90828 November 2006
Casino Royale is the first James Bond movie based on a book since The Living Daylights, and the first really good Bond movie since GoldenEye. After acquiring his 00 status, Bond is sent to a casino in Montenegro where he must beat a man called Le Chiffre in a massive game of Poker. If he wins, Le Chiffre will go down, but if he loses, the money will go toward terrorism. Bond ends up falling in love with the accountant sent to help him, Vesper Lynd, as he must deal with Le Chiffre and his men constantly trying to put him down. This is certainly not the most action packed of the Bond films, meaning it actually has a story, which is always good news.

Casino Royale certainly lived up to the hype I felt for it. Everything in this film is good. Unlike the past couple of Bond films, this movie mixes a really good story with some great action scenes. Bond's mission seems pretty simple, he has to win a poker game, but the things that happen before, during, and after the game are awesome. This is a complete reboot of the Bond series, not connected to the past 20 films at all, but the film makers wisely kept Bond traditions alive. They had the song (even though it wasn't the best Bond theme) and the clever opening titles, they had the one liners (though in this movie they were awesome and funny instead of terribly corny), and just when I was getting worried he wouldn't say it, they squeezed "Bond, James Bond" at the end along with the classic theme. They even thought up a new and refreshing gun barrel sequence. This film goes quality over quantity, and that automatically makes it good in my books. Le Chiffre isn't the most exciting villain Bond has ever faced, but he is cool. Vesper Lynd makes an attractive and appealing Bond girl.

The performances are great. When Daniel Craig was cast, most everyone had their doubts. I was a Craig supporter and I had my doubts. When I saw the movie, he blew me out of the water. Looks wise he's nothing like what Ian Fleming intended, but behaviour and attitude wise he was perfect. No one will ever top Sean Connery in my opinion, but Daniel Craig is the best Bond since. Eva Green gives a good performance as Vesper Lynd. Mads Mikkelsen gave a great performance as the villain Le Chiffre. He portrayed the evilness well, and his eyes contained pure enjoyment whenever he saw Bond fail. I also liked Jeffrey Wright as the new Felix Leiter.

Overall, this is one of the best Bond films in a while, and I hope Daniel Craig continues to pump out movies as great as this.

8.5/10
2/10
This Bogus Bond
andrew-sacco6 March 2007
To anyone who thinks this is "one of the greatest Bond movies" I say "baloney". It is a dark, brooding Bond that you cannot like. Bond has always been portrayed as witty, classy, jovial and sophisticated with a sense of humor. This Bond is none of that. I do not recognize anything Bondish about this film! The success of the Bond formula is always about expectations. This veers too far from what we've known Bond to be. I do not appreciate this attempt to recreate a wholly new persona, not after the image we have of Bond- which has been so consistently developed now for so many years. It has none of the tongue-and-cheek character that makes all the violence redeemable. It's just an action movie, with someone claiming to be Bond in it. Craig is not Bond. Thumbs down.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A new Bond
tastyhotdogs27 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw this after seeing "Quantum of Solace", which was a dumb idea but didn't really have a choice. Here's my review.

"Casino Royale" brings us a new Bond, Daniel Craig, who is a 180 from all the previous ones. He's cold and calculated and not very funny, but the ladies still love him.

This movie sees him try to halt a fund raising attempt for a terrorist organisation that involves playing "Texas Hold 'Em" (my dream). Of course Bond is good at most things and cards is certainly on the list. Along the way there's lots of chases, fights and explosions, many better than anything we've seen in any movies, let alone the Bond franchise. There's many memorable scenes including an attempt to blow up a plane, a chase on a construction site, a drink spiking and a memorable scene.....well it involves Bond's nuts and a special whip, but it's not sexual.

Don't wanna give to much away but it's a great film, heaps of action and no-one would walk away unimpressed. Make sure you see it before seeing "Quantum of Solace" to save some confusion.
1/10
A matter of (BAD) taste
robell6 April 2007
The discrepancy between my low opinion of Casino Royale and the nearly universal approval— even enthusiasm—of critics and viewers can be dismissed as merely "a matter of taste," but that is what it is. It seems that the present appetite for special effects and breakneck violence trumps any wish for interesting characterization or for credible or suspenseful plotting.

Because the special effects in this film are excellent, the violence full throttle, and the stunt work abundant and unsurpassed, then there is little or no concern that the plot is muddled and absurd, the continuity fractured, the multiple villains less than memorable, the blandly pretty female lead lacking in glamor or sizzle, and the muscular protagonist now divested of sophistication, mischief, and wit.

Most disturbing is the evident taste for the depiction of brutal torture in the nastiest such scene ever, one which you would expect to appeal only to the S&M "community." Though the public no longer attends bear-baitings and public executions for fun, they find their entertainment in simulated torture that kills or injures no victims, but debases themselves.

I now say a nostalgic farewell to Agent 007 and a curt "get lost" to Agent Oh Oh -Oh, James Bondage.
10/10
Superb film of the raw Bond in his beginning
SimonJack25 May 2018
Daniel Craig's premiere as James Bond also marked a revision of the character on film. "Casino Royale" is the first serious production of Ian Fleming's first novel that created agent 007 of the British Secret Service, MI6. Where the tenures of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan had moved more toward more humor in dialog and scenes, this film returns to the original serious and dark nature of the subject and character.

This is James Bond in the beginning. It's Bond in the raw, showing his flaws and weaknesses as well as his quick thinking and physical abilities. And, it shows his struggle with the conflicting clashes of morality, emotion, and cold-hearted facts of duty.

This film follows the modern trend of nearly non-stop action with several sequences of harrowing physical action and encounters. And, it has the most daring and harrowing personal pursuit of any film to date. That happens in the opening segment when Bond pursues Mollaka in a chase that tears through crowds and buildings, and leaps from cranes in construction sites. Mollaka is played by Sebastien Foucan, co-founder of parkour, a free-running sport that jumps, dodges and hurtles through urban and commercial settings.

Bond falls in love in this segment and loses his wife. In later stories - filmed in the past, reference is sometimes made to his having been married before.

Roger Craig provides a more ruggedly handsome Bond, a return to the character as played originally by Sean Connery. It was only natural that in later episodes, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan would show a much more polished and even sophisticated Bond. In this revival of the character from the start of the series, it wouldn't seem as natural for Craig to have such worldly taste and knowledge yet as to comment on the vintages of wines. That's something that Moore and Brosnan could do so naturally and believably.

The production of this film is superb in all aspects. It clearly is the best of all the Bond films - including those that followed to date.

Here's my favorite line in the film. Bond says to Vesper, "Why is it people who can't take advice always insist on giving it?"
1/10
Mr. Butcher plays poker
bahaar12 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mr James Bond, or as I'd rather call him, Mr. Amok Butcher, without a touch of the Angel of Mercy, stamped down, and meanwhile chopped every single seemingly innocent people -- though some say nobody's innocent -- as well as every sinner, who happened to cross the path of his absurd run to catch a terrorist and chop him before an embassy or a brand new super-airplane is being blown up. No damage, no casualties, no loss was unreasonable.

And it was just the beginning; it got even more weird when Mr. B. shot down one of the bad guys in a totally insane manner, when the guy's attempt to blow up the embassy was counteracted and the guy was absolutely innocuous. Moreover, another bad guy was being the subject of 007's gloat contemplation while -- thanks to our hero's little trick -- he was detonating just himself instead of a refueling unit parked (By whom? By the good guy who saved the tax-payers mana-fructing day again) neatly next to the target of the terrorists.

Then came the bitch (as Mr. B.'d put it once to his puppet employer) to the rescue. Though he noticed she'd loved someone, I'm not sure Mr. B. was not too selfish and heartless to realize the girl's real commitment, devotion and affection towards to the other man.

Nonetheless, the super-bad guy attempted to cardio-poison Mr. B. after he have had to re-buy himself into a 100 million bucks pot poker game. No problem, the girl saved Mr. B.'s life with his defibrillator-on-the-go. After the felicitous resurrection, Mr. B. sat back to the poker table and humorously said to his super-bad rival "The last hand almost killed me". Eventually the chess and maths genius rival called Mr. B.'s all-in with a killer full house in hand and 3 spades on the table. Loaded with booze, Mr. B., achieved a flawless victory with a flush.

Finishing this last dirty job (some other bad guys were killed in the intermission of the game), they went on vacation where she tried to save our frantic friend from further rampage. But Mr. B. showed reluctance to realize the angel's true feelings towards himself. Or was he just incapable of truly believing in the unaffectedness of the girl's feelings?

Eventually she went off with the money to save the other beloved man. Mr. B. could not help her, he even felt to be betrayed and running after his money, sneaked after her. So she concurrently tried to save Mr. B.'s life and the other beloved man's life from her extorter.

Though Mr. B. previously had said to her he loved her because of her straightforwardness, "she does not have a tell", his acts belied his words and Mr. B. deservedly ended up with another beautiful cold body. The only difference, this time he was not walking over it but he was kissing this one all over on the pale face and neck. The conclusion he drew in conjunction with the puppet: never trust in anyone.

I bet one of my fellows, for now let's call him Bricky, would summarize it as "complete bullshit", or "net bullshit". And I bet I would reply to Bricky "gross bullshit", because I could pick any conversation, any action scene: all of them are so nonsense that the whole movie became a perfectly continuous flow of stupidity.

If you deliberately want to torture yourself by examining how deeply stupid is this crap, or if you think you'll get pleasantly excited while cheering for Mr. B.'s succeeding to preserve the new Skyfleet plane sound and explode the bad guy while gasoline's squirting all over from a tanker and if I have not so far spoiled your excitement: then it is a must for you. And if you might be one of those, who expect to get some cold water on his/her philanthropic enthusiasm while keeping his/her finger crossed for Mr. B. and wishing him to throw the detonator to a very place where it cause the least possible harm: then you are definitely going to get it with ice cubes. Those few, on whom none of the above goes, might not want to waste 2 hours of his/her valuable time on watching this film.

OK, let's cut now this exaggerated glorification and let's have a look at the good part of it: throughout the whole movie, the violence never appeared to be OK. On the contrary, it was so real, that right at the chopping of the first bad gay I said to myself: "Oh Lord, please protect me and let me avoid ever hurting somebody so rapturously". In some action scene, the demolition was so overwhelming, the the chase was so extraordinarily dynamic and acrobatic that it was funny.

All of you, who felt sarcasm in this review, please forgive my embittered disappointment, my condemnation, and my rejection. Maybe this is just the consequence of recently having been frustratingly turned down. May have harmed my loved ones and now may have to pay the bill to the devil.

I gave it a 1. Lastly, let's not forget: it is easier to cry something (e.g. a bad dinner) down then to put something (e.g. a good dinner) together.
4/10
unsatisfactory characterization
dimanchild3 December 2006
Looking at this movie simply as a movie, and not being concerned with whether it's a "true Bond film" or not--meh. There are a couple of fun and impressive scenes (one really visually impressive in particular, in the beginning), but nothing that's either emotionally engaging or really that pretty to look at. I think one thing that bothered me was that the movie failed both to embody Bond's usual complete disregard of life, and to communicate any actual concern for it. The character is stripped of its usual clichés, but somehow still manages to remain flat.

Which is annoying. I like characters to be three-dimensional.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Bond
OldFilmGuy25 January 2022
Casino Royale reboots the franchise with a raw, brutal take on Bond. The film strips away the excessive CGI and gadgetry that dominated previous films. This new direction sets the tone for a more realistic 007. The action sequences are intensely satisfying. I am glad the film does justice to the source material.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fleming Material Makes Better Film For 007
DKosty12323 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A trip back to Ian Flemming actually benefits & renews the Bond film series. While our new Bond resembles a British Steve McQueen in looks, this film has a more serious tone than the last few outings. His looks are not as important as the fact that this movie calls for him to act & he does.

The reduction in gadgets & increase in story using Flemings material benefits this film greatly. The actors in support do well. There are even sections of this film without action which is really rare in the Bond series. Some great scenery in the locales used in the film, & the opening sequence in black & white is quite effective.

The humor is not as abundant, but the settings are more realistic than most Bond films & this one has a quality of drama to it. The poker sequences are well done & for a rare time in a Bond film he actually loses a few hands. The setting for parts of this film is the same place where Anakin Skywalker wed in Satr Wars 2 for you Lucas fans.

There is a neat sequence where a house in Venice is sunk, literally. Not sure how they pulled this off but it looks much more real than the effects in Die Another Day did.

Good film, & an opening for a sequel at the end of the film which has never been done in a Bond movie before. Well worth the time spent compared with previous films.

Now, as this is the only year with 007 for the next 1000 years, will a sequel be ready to come out this year that will continue to re-new & refresh the series as this one has started too? Happy Bond Year, 007 to you all!!
4/10
The unbelievable rubbish James Bond
buffyboyuk19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond - Casino Royale was not a real James Bond movie. The plot was non - existent with half the movie showing a poker game. Bond was either running at a car or beating the hell out of someone. When you see this movie, you will think that James has gone on holiday and left a rookie (Daniel Craig) to do his job.

The villains in this movie were just a bunch of money-grabbers. Normally you see the villains trying to take over the world, but one guy wants to save his own butt buy playing a poker game, and the rest were distant shadows that didn't have a big enough part and just became pointless.

Also, James's Aston is a car that he is supposed to do amazing stunts with, but the only thing the writers could think of was to break the World Record for the amount of spins a car can make, 5 minutes after he receives it.

If you are a Bond traditionalist, you will find this movie different, boring and pointless.

Overall, this movie should go to Q and ask him to blow it up.
5/10
Good movie but does not make any sense
goisles792725 November 2006
What were they thinking making a prequel in the first place? This basically means they are all out of ideas. If this movie is a prequel, why does it take place in the modern day. For bond enthusiasts, this movie is terrible. If it takes place in the modern day, why is felix leiter there? He had his leg and arm bitten off by a shark in License to kill in 1989. Also they make references to 9/11 so it has to take place in the modern day. How is M a woman also. In goldeneye, Valentin Zuchovsky says "i heard your new M is a woman" If this movie is before the series, M can only be a man. The opening sequence is short and boring also but at least the music is pretty good. Eva green was a pretty good bond girl. Daniel Craig is so so, I'm a brosnan fan. If the producers just made this movie another in the series and didn't make it a prequel idea, i would have thought it was much better. Barbara Brocolli, the producer has not done well with Bond since her father Cubby died. She produced beauties such as world is not enough and die another day, not good bond movies. They are also thinking about remaking all bond movies with stories written by Ian Fleming to be done more closely to the storyline of the books. This would be terrible. Well, doing a prequel might kill the series which is terrible but they are simply all out of ideas.
1/10
Waste of time & money
SouthamptonFCfan17 December 2006
This was a Sony and Ford show. And did I spot Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines too? I hated the new Bond. Bond MUST be handsome but this guy looked like a waiter in an East European restaurant. Can he deliver the lines? Let's put it this way - if you like a monotonous drone, you'll like him. Man, haven't they got anyone better to choose from? Listen up producers, you've lost me as a customer. I ain't paying to see another Bond flick as long as that neanderthal is playing Bond, OK? And I mean what I say. Like I said, too much ADVERTISING!!! I bet good ol' Branson paid to show his mug, if it was him. And what is it with the 21st century mobiles and laptops? Is this a PREQUEL or SEQUEL??? Sheesh... And I hate Judi Dench as M. I mean, she just isn't M. I would give this stinker a 0 if I could. And that's not to mention the absence of any meaningful action. Oh ya, and very very LONG & BORING. As bad as watching Saints hang on to a 1-goal lead. Gimme my time and money back!!!
33 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A worthy addition to the Bond collection
cosmic_quest16 November 2006
After months of anticipation, 'Casino Royale' was revealed to be, at least for me, a rather enjoyable thriller. Perhaps it wasn't the best Bond but it was a worthy addition to the collection.

Based upon the first of Ian Flemming's novels, 'Casino Royale' sees Bond newly promoted to '00' status meaning he now has a license to kill and this is a license he intends to put to very good use. His assignment as 007 first leads him to a terrorist cell then to LeChiffre, who is raising his funds in a high-powered poker game that he can't afford to lose.

This was a darker, more aggressive Bond and Daniel Craig definitely captured that essence to the character, a man who's not afraid to kill or to put his life on the line because he's still young enough not to care. This Bond was also more human in that he can feel pain and can be injured even if he does endured it all with military prowess. I did feel Craig was a shade too old for the role, however, as the arrogance and ego of this younger Bond would have suited a man who looked no older than his mid-thirties and was still relishing the novelty of his new '00' status. He might be in his late thirties but he looks a good decade older. That said, now this 'origins' storyline is over, I think he will be better suited as an older, veteran Bond in subsequent films (although had they cast a younger Bond, he would have been able to do more films than Craig is surely destined to do). Judi Dench was excellent as always though as she reprised her role as the cool, self-assured 'M' but this time it seemed fitting there was almost a touch of concern in her tone towards Bond, who is meant to be still quite fresh-faced in his duties.

The actual plot-line was very involving, shifting between multiple villains in the tradition of the novel. I imagine some folk might find the poker scenes a bit tiring, especially if they are unfamiliar with the game, but the action and fight scenes more than make up for that as Bond proves that he didn't spend his training days learning how to sip martinis and wear a tux. The violence is raw and all necessary in comparison with other action films where it's added because it looks good or will make a nice scene in the video game. Also, the whole set up of M16 reflects on a post September 11th era where intelligence services are both under pressure to produce results and under surveillance by the press to ensure they don't abuse their powers and this works well to compliment the moodier tone of the film and Bond.

Yet there were a number of flaws I found with 'Casino Royale'. The first was the length; a good twenty minutes towards the end could have been shaved down. Secondly, the villains, including LeChiffre, lacked substance. Not enough effort was made to give them personality and make them more three-dimensional. The result was, it was hard to care one way or the other what happened to them compared with other villains in previous Bond films that either left the audience admiring their audacity or eager to see them die. Also, Vesper-- the Bond girl-- was a another character who lacked depth and it was hard to understand how Bond suddenly fell for her when there was little chemistry between them nor were there any scenes to suggest they felt a romantic connection. Product placement of Sony and Ford was a major annoyance in the film to the point where I've been put off both after being overly-advertised to. It just cheapened the film seeing Sony products being shown off right, left and centre. That, and a better song could have been chosen for accompanying the title credits, especially since a film where a new actor is debuting as Bond deserves something more memorable.

Personally, Craig isn't the best Bond nor was this the best Bond film but 'Casino Royale' surpassed my expectations and I'm sure other Bond fans who doubted him will probably find him, at the very least, acceptable in the role and will be willing to give him a chance in another film. It will be interesting to see how he depicts the character shifting from headstrong, aggressiveness to collected maturity (yet still deadly) as Bond gains more experience. One last thing, this film was rated a 12A but, parents, do think twice about bringing your younger, more sensitive children as there are some scenes which can be quite brutal.
2/10
can be "blond bond" but its not about that!
siirdostu692 December 2006
all people think about that it cant be a "blond bond"... but i thought about that it can be a "blond bond" if he acts well. i just watched the movie ...

after from "die another day" and "The World Is Not Enough" it was an awful movie. because there was no topic there was no good acts . Martin Campbell might be want to make a different movie. but if he wanna different movie he should find better actors and actress' because if somebody watched anyone of these series before from Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan will think that is bad movie.

at the and being blonde not a "fault" but bad acts are "crime" for "james bond" ...
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I almost liked this film, but...
petarmatic20 March 2015
To show Montenegro as a modern and prosperous state?!? Ha,ha,ha! I died of laughing! Montenegro is a backwater and a country full of savages! I hate that I went there, after the wars of Yugoslav disintegration. They are such savages that they attacked and pillaged suburbs of Dubrovnik in 1991, when Croatia was totally unarmed and not ready for war! I know, times have changed, just as Judy Dench said, God I miss the cold war! So do I my dear M, peace and calm of it. We the former Yugoslavs could of traveled and had more money during those times. Now we mostly have nothing.

As far as film goes, I liked the action parts of it, otherwise I was not that thrilled with the rest. With exception of Judy Dench, she is such a darling! Although I am not sure that role of M suits he that well. I was surprised to find that this film received such great grades, I do not think it really deserves such a high grades.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Back From the Dead
ThomasDrufke5 November 2015
It's well documented how much I don't like the Brosnan films but we got a new Bond because of the lack of quality in those films. That new Bond being Daniel Craig. Since this film, Casino Royale, was the first Bond film I ever saw, it has a special place in my love of Bond, and films in general. But it's not just that it was my first Bond, Casino Royale is a great film no matter what.

As a new Bond usually does, Casino Royale reinvented the formulaic nature of this series. This all starts by giving Bond one of if not the best female leads of all time. Eva Green may be the first ever Bond woman of the series as she exemplifies pure strength in her vulnerability. She is not a damsel in distress and she is in no way the usual eye candy or sex object that the series can sometimes rely upon. Her chemistry with Craig is undeniable as is her likability as the stunning and seductive Vesper Lynd.

It's the longest Bond film upon its release which is noticeable, but it's also used to the film's advantage. There are plenty of twists and turns to go along with some of the series' best action sequences to date. Right from the opening pre-credits to the thrilling climatic scene, Casino Royale blends the best of what modern day CGI and effects have to offer while also showing tribute to the best of what the series offered so far. Mads Mikkelsen plays Le Chiffre, a quietly manipulating investor for terrorists. The first half of the film is non-stop action packed as 007 goes after Chiffre, but it really picks up once Green and Mikkelsen come into play.

Casino Royale is in many ways an origin story for Bond. We begin the film with him just being promoted to '007' status. He's careless and very much egotistical throughout the film. But he shows the beginnings to the Bond we love. We don't even here the classic Bond theme until the very end of the film, but everything really comes together perfectly for this movie. I think it may be my favorite of the series because it doesn't rely on the beautiful girls and action sequences to tell a great story. Both of those aspects are very present, but they don't overpower just how great the story and writing are. But I think the thing I appreciate the most about the film is that it treats the audience intelligently unlike the few films before it.

+Origin story

+Eva Green is fantastic

+High powered action

+Mixed with a twisted and intelligent plot

+Mikkelsen

+Not formulaic

9.6/10
3/10
"The name's Bourne, James Bo...err wait, what?"
polytourist971 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly I'll come right out and say that I was in the "anti-craig" camp leading up to the film's release. I'd seen him in other films and thought he was decent, but I just didn't think he could be convincing as a Bond. However, I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised that Craig was not bad as Bond. I didn't think he was GOOD, but he definitely was not the reason this film ended up as a disappointment.

The reason? Well, as stated before by many others, it would seem that the series didn't like its protagonist anymore. Therefor, we now have a "new" Bond. That is to say, we now have a character that seems to be more 'assassin that happens to be working for MI6' rather than 'MI6 agent that is forced to get his hands dirty when the situation calls for it'. People claim this is "refreshing" because it makes for a "darker grittier Bond". I see it as alienating. I guess people no longer want a gentleman spy who relies on wit and guile to get him through tough situations. They want James "everyman" Bond to get the crap kicked out of him and take out as many others in the process...but wait he still has to where a tux. And have clever one-liners. Because it wouldn't be Bond without those!

To me the film was just a conglomeration of awkwardness... The intro black & white scene where you weren't sure if you were in the right movie until some guy said the name "Bond"; that same scene being black and white for no other reason that I can tell other than to catch people's attention (yet it worked); The characterization of Bond as a hard-ass who spoke in syllables and punched out your teeth, yet would suddenly shift into an entity of super-natural sophistication; a Bond that fell into school-boy love with an obviously shifty female, only to almost automatically dismiss her as a "bitch", THEN go out and get revenge on the man who forced the woman into her treachery; and of course a plot with a ton of holes that ended up bearing very little to no significance when it was all said and done.

There's more, but I don't feel like putting myself through the torture of trying to remember all of the movies shortcomings. (don't even get me STARTED on the title song...Chris Cornell you're fired) All in all, it's a fairly mundane movie with a few action sequences that will keep the simple minded movie-goers distracted long enough to claim it's the best Bond ever without realizing that it's not really Bond at all. They can have this one, so long as I can keep FRWL or Goldeneye.
7/10
The music is wrong! And Eva Green?
babot_teal20 November 2006
The new blonde bond is refreshing. The edginess that Daniel Craig brings to Bond meshes nicely with Sean Connery's Bond. The filming locations are spot on! Mads Mikkelsen is the perfect villain for this Bond. Unfortunately, the music and graphics for the opening credits were WRONG! Where are the silhouetted babes? Why wasn't a female singer picked to sing the title song? Perhaps Wilson, Campbell, and Cornell are too politically correct to make a proper Bond flick. I grew up on Bond films … wondering which female performer was going to sing the title song … and who the new bond girl would be. They blew it this time, and I am very disappointed that they either haven't done their homework, or are afraid to step out of bounds. Too bad! For all the hype about the new music for Casino Royale it falls far too short of the mark. I'm not sold on Eva Green, either. She seems a bit mousey, and forced.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
You gotta be kidding!!!
unseenforcez4 December 2006
I went to see this movie based on votes I saw here.Big mistake!!!! It started out good,and went to crap super fast!Super cheesy story line was awful,Don't waste your money or your time.Bond girl co-star was not even that pretty and could not act at all,Wonder how she got chosen for the part at all.Might as well have been watching a cartoon.Terrible plot line watching people play poker,the one good thing was the villain who seemed to have decent acting skills.Bond looked more like a midget than a man.Small guy for an elite spy.Could be voted worst movie of 2006 possibly.Don't go see this movie.See Mission Impossible 3 instead..much better film.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why this is an awful Bond
ceen5226 November 2006
Is this where we are at? Is this the state of the nation? Bring back the cold war and let's dump this Bond into the rubbish bin of America's world paranoia. Because that's whets happened, Bond has been hijacked by the Yankee Doodle dandy with a cob on! In every Bond from on her Majesty's secret service to Golden Eye there has been more than a passing nod in the direction of the Fleming novels, and although the plot of the film sticks tersely to the novels outline, its modern interpretation is like fitting a square peg into a round hole. Craig's bond is the proverbial hammer, for whom every problem seems to be a nail, this was a real chance to expose an audience to Flemings insight into the Bond character, his reasons for returning to the service are complicated and full of pathos, made all the more acute by Vespers suicide. Now i'm not one of those nuts that says a film should be like the book, not in the least, they are two distinct and separate forms and should do what they do best. My complaint here is that this is Bond on the tin and some silly Mission Impossible, Ethan Hunt caricature of an English Spy inside. Campbell directs Craig like he directs Stallone in Vertical limits, wooden, without skill and not an ounce of sympathy. The Fleming bond even at this early stage was not the two dimensional blunt instrument that is cast here, his emasculation at the hands of Le Chiffre was a moment of brief respite for me. I had thought of doing that to myself in the second half of the film using my bare hands and a bag of Minstrels! But the agony continued! In fact had Campbell bothered to gain an insight from the novel, from which he stole the best line "The bitch is dead now." (of course he interpreted it "The bitch is dead!" which makes it sound very different to the British core of this character, much more like a moment from a Tarrantino script) the Yankeefication of Bond is an issue that really should be dealt with, its not that I don't like these bludgeoning action heroes from across the pond, I love them, grew up on them, but why oh why does it have to pervade every nuance of what is, essentially, a very English hero? And indeed a very English idea of heroism. This unique texture has been lost in this Bond, replaced by action sequences (That of course you expect to be very good) and the worse game of cards ever filmed!! No panache, no style, not an ounce of performance. One of the core themes removed from Bond is his loss of innocence, Fleming's novel saw a dedicated young man struggle for what is right in the world, win, then ultimately lose through a process of torture and suicide. The key is that he rejoins MI6 not because he is embittered or broken but because the world appears as it really is; dangerous, full of hopes and disappointment. The film has Bonds character start at thick and end at thicker. What ever revelation that Vesper might have brought is lost because of where this Bond started the film. I mean Campbell's idea of culture is to drop a Venetian building into the sea? Where is the finesse? It seems as though along with his Bond, even Campbell gave up hope at the end and started to pull the plug, flushing the whole sorry affair into a very deep murky water. Lets get back to the core of Bond, which is unquestionably The Best Of British, its Roger Moore leaping off a mountain with a union jack parachute, its Sean Connery sitting at the card table in Thunderball, and of course that very 'cunninlinguist' Brosnan allowing his masculinity to be 'PC'-fied. It is not a flickering 'Last Action Hero' muscle- bound- robot with the acting ability of a spade blowing up everything that moves (and a few that don't) Let the Americans do that with their hero's, they're better at it, and it makes more sense.
7/10
"An intense, violent, adrenaline pumped action film"
galileo322 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond. James Bond

The super successful saga of the British super-spy, reinvigorates and restructures itself after 44 years and 20 films later.

Daniel Craig steps into Bond's well tailored clothes and enjoys a piece of intense action, beautiful women, exotic locations as well as being subjected to torture and being poisoned.

Casino Royale is a more believable and possible story, unlike the previous Bond films which involve insane megalomaniacs wanting to take over the world (or destroy it). Royale is about a private banker who openly funds terrorist organisations around the world, trying to regain the money he lost from his shares by setting up a high stakes poker game.

That's not going to happen though! Bond is there to destroy all of Le Chiffre's plans.

One of the most refreshing action films of recent years. Intense action like the Mission Impossible Trilogy and that extra Bond touch, Casino Royale is the 21st Century phase of James Bond.

7/10
1/10
A travesty
amolk31 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Being a Bond fan, I had great expectations from this movie, with all the hype I had heard. Sadly, the movie did not live up to expectations.

First of all, the movie is very "choppy". It goes from non-stop action to periods of soporific calm. There's an effort to recapture the magic in the beginning scenes. However, that effort falls flat on it's face. It doesn't even begin to compare to the ski chase in "The Spy Who Loved Me".

The dialog, to be blunt, is flatter than beer that's been left standing for a week. I missed the double entendres and the dry British humor that the other Bonds employed with such effectiveness.

There are hardly any exciting Bond gadgets in this movie. "Q" is very conspicuous by his absence. Forget about any memorable car chases! The morning traffic around here is more exciting.

The villain, Le Chiffre, is the most pathetic Bond villain of all time. Where, oh where, are the villains like Goldfinger, with their classic lines and delivery? The movie drags on and on after the first 30 minutes or so. Were the produces trying to achieve a certain running time? There's precious little quality content, in terms of dialog, action, etc.

Last but not the least, this is the LEAST convincing Bond. Daniel Craig is utterly unconvincing as James Bond and can't hold a candle to the likes of Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Craig's dialog delivery isn't deadpan, it's plain dead boring. Craig's Bond doesn't ever come alive and merely flickers along for the entire length of the film. The film seems to be a sequence of scenes ripped from older Bond films.

All in all, a HUGE disappointment. This is the first Bond movie, ever, that I don't ever want to watch again!
6/10
Very disappointed - Not good enough to be a Bond Movie
TaZmAnOO730 November 2006
Most of what I think has been said by others already by the look of it. The opening credits were really lousy - by ANY standards... and so is that bond song - What on earth were these people thinking when they made this Bond movie???? I think Daniel Craig is the worst bond for a very long time - I really watched the film with an open mind - but have to say they have made a huge mistake in casting him as bond. There is something not right about him at all, and it seems to lose everything that was unique and great about bond. In fact, I really think they should bring back Brosnan(!) The movie being set in the present doesn't work at all either - this is meant to be bond becoming a 00 agent. By setting it after the other bond movies, it is effectively saying the other bond movies never happened.

This bond is not suave, sophisticated, or even polite. He should have been cast as a baddie. He has the personality of a plank of driftwood, and is more like a token henchman than anything else.

There weren't many gadgets either, which isn't a good thing - but that's not my main gripe with this movie.

The movie just doesn't work for me. It most certainly isn't worthy of the Bond title...

As a fan of most of the bond movies, I am extremely disappointed - I will not be adding this to my DVD collection.
7/10
This Bond film is a fine entry into the long running and well-loved series
inkblot1120 November 2006
James Bond (Daniel Craig) has just completed the arduous journey to 00 spy status. An employee of the British government, his assignments will be the most difficult and important cases imaginable from this time forward. As he is investigating an African warlord's money connections, he ends up, unhappily, as front page news when the case takes a slightly wrong turn. Nevertheless, his investigations propel him to follow a corrupt money manager named Le Chiffre, whose clients are the most unsavory and dangerous in the world. From the Bahamas, to the Czech Republic, and to Montenegro, Bond is out to get his man. He even risks a great deal on a high stakes card game in one of the most plush casinos on the face of the earth. Naturally, beautiful women cross his path as well. Will Bond end up victorious on his first months on the job? This is an exciting movie with the highest of production values. Craig is splendid as the newest Bond, sure to please male and female movie goers alike, with his cool but charming demeanor. The other cast members, including Judy Dench, are very well chosen and significant. As for the scenery, it is, quite simply, to die for. Even if you wish to hide your eyes when the fighting begins, you will love the quick but gorgeous trip around the globe. To everyone's joy, too, the stunts are imaginative and intricate enough to please the longtime Bond fans everywhere. In short, shake or stir yourself out of your easychair, hop in the auto, and buy your ticket soon, very soon. Even those who have never seen a Bond film will take to the movie like a long standing aficionado.
6/10
Pft it was alright
mduquenoy-14 September 2018
Watched it again just now and it's a bit pants. I really like the gritty, realistic Bond and the action is gripping but I don't buy much of it. Le Chiffre would have just killed him. Bond's really the greatest poker player in the world? There were no leads at the end and yet he turns on his mobile and the answer pops up right there? Seems they realised the film was 2.20 hrs and simply had to end it. They filmed some decent action sequences and appeared to make up a story around them.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Take me back to the old Bond days.....Please
diamondjeff-125 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Please take me back to the good old days of Roger Moore. Just like all movies these days everything has to be over the top with ridiculous stunts and mind blowing sound effects. What is this, an episode of Walker Texas Ranger where everybody can get kicked in the face five times and and receive massive body blows before they go down. And where was the funny banter between Bond and Q..... there was no Q. As a matter of fact most of the gadgets were missing except Bond seems to do a lot of e-mailing. Gone to are the funny one liners that always have been a hallmark of the Bond films. I have been watching the old Bond films this weekend on the Spike network and enjoying those films far better then this junk. And finally, you better bring some Dramamnie to help you fight motion sickness during all the super close shaky camera effects during hand to hand fight scenes................. Ahhhh for the days of Roger and Sean. P.S. I think I've seen enough card playing to last me for a while.
3/10
rubbish movie
abhi_kp1 December 2006
I must say contrary to what every one else on this website believes i found this bond movie extremely boring to the point where i dozed off. lets begin with the title song...crap. the worst i have heard of any other bond movie. Daniel Craig...is OK. not quite close to Sean Connery in style or acting or even Pierce Brosnan. A VERY VERY long movie. the opening scene is quite good i must admit but the chase after that was too long. I did not like the long romance scene...well i don't picture bond as someone who would romance on the beach. Eva green not the best bond girl. and no gadgets. I do understand that the movie is very similar to the book but when i see a bond flick i see action...good music..hot bond girls...loads of gadgets...cool car. and this bond movie had nothing such like...!
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Bond Movie Ever
dragonflyblade2117 March 2007
OK, did these pricks just pluck my loins and my $13.99?...

OK, I'll admit, the new Bond isn't bad (even though Pierce was about a million times better even when the plot was so ludicrous and laughable that you were still happy to pay the 8 bucks at the movie theater to see Bond do what he does best... Take names and get the chick) but holy crap... Not to be a chauvinistic pig but did a woman write this plot? First off, the Bond girls were HORRIBLE (makes me want to watch Elizabeth Hurley from Austin Powers... At least she had some better breasts) not to mention a LOT of the scenes were of James walking up onto the beach with his shirt off or something of the like where he's half (or fully) naked in this movie. Oh yeah, and almost forgot to mention, NO GADGETS?!?!?! WHAT?!?!?!!? Did the new Q look at this plot and laugh so hard at it that he said, "Screw this. I'll be damned if I give anything high tech to this p.o.s. film." Sorry guys, but this film blew more than ... well... if Timothy Dalton played in this flick.

My manliness rating of this double Oh my God, yet more time is stolen from my life: Pathetic.
6/10
Is not James Bond anymore....
sebastian_orozco113 January 2010
I had seen all Bond's movies, and I am a huge fan. But this movie and its sequel, disappointed me. Both movies are good action movies, but the classic Bond is lost. James Bond is good looking, a gentleman, he uses tuxedos and he is always calm, and clean. This new James Bond is the opposite of that. If you saw any of the other bond movies, you will always see him sleeping with at least 2 girls, always being charming with the women, and always introducing himself as "Bond, James Bond",and (I think ) in this movie, it never happens. *SPOILER* This movie ends, and Bond is alone and seeking for revenge.... WTF???? and only for a girl... my god he only loved one girl and married her, but was killed that same day (never heard before he had another girl that got killed). The first "M" was a male, in this move is Judie Dench, but this is the beginning of 007, it should be a male "M" not a female. Where is "Q"???? No "Q" in this movie and he appears on Quantum of Solace like 1 time in the whole movie.... in other Bond Movies he was always very important, always giving new weapons to James and.... NOTHING in this one.

I must admit this is a good action movie, but its not a Bond movie, thats why I gave it a 5 star, if this movie weren't a bond movie, i would give a 8 star, cause is really good, but again... is not James Bond.
6/10
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly...and the Beautiful Eva Green
WriterDave21 November 2006
"Casino Royale" is the 21st "official" James Bond movie, and as the longest running franchise in movie history, let's get down to the basics:

The Good: Daniel Craig adds a cold, hard edge to Bond that hasn't been there in a long time. We'll have to wait and see over the course of the next few films if he can hold a candle to Sean Connery, but he has an acting range that surpasses Pierce Brosnan and is already miles ahead of Roger Moore.

Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is the best Bond Girl since Diana Rigg in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." She's a natural beauty who lights up the screen every time she is in frame. While some of her banter with Craig falls flat, the character development the writers give her makes her the most complex and fascinating female character since Rigg's Tracy Di Vicenzo, and Green is a good enough actress to pull it off.

Also, Chris Cornell's Bond Theme Song, "You Know my Name" is the best one since Paul McCartney's "Live and Let Die."

The Bad: As dark and serious and true to Ian Fleming's original incarnation everyone tries to keep the film, Martin Campell (of "Goldeneye" and "Mask of Zorro" fame) is still just a run-of-the-mill action-adventure director, which means he can pull off some fun stunts that look great, but he has no sense of style to carry off some of the more intense moments. He seems to exist only to dangle stunt-men from various objects in midair, which makes the opening chase scene at a Madagascar construction site the most entertaining bit.

The Ugly: I appreciate everyone's desire to strip Bond back down to the basics, but he needs a villain to play off, and the asthmatic poker playing terrorist power broker who cries blood (dumb!) just didn't cut it. Give the audience something to chew on. Nobody complained about them keeping the one-liners, the hot girls, or the hot cars...so let's get a villain worth routing against next time.

The product placement (especially when he drives a Ford in Montenegro before getting his Astin-Martin) is so in-your-face it becomes distracting--so was the ridiculous Richard Branson cameo in the airport. This is just bad movie making no matter how you cut it.

Finally, this felt like the longest movie I have sat through since "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" and I think this was at least forty-five minutes shorter. That's not a good thing for a franchise action movie, no matter how much reinvention was going on.

Bottom Line: Wiping away most of the silliness of the last two Brosnan flicks, a leaner, meaner Bond has been delivered that still has many flaws. Comparing this to similar and more recent franchises, this is far superior to the "Mission:Impossible" episodes, but not nearly as deliciously convoluted, clever, or emotionally involving as the Jason Bourne flicks.
8/10
Daniel Craig IS Bond. End of discussion.
TheMovieMark17 November 2006
If you've listened closely then you've heard the whining and complaining from the Bond purists regarding the selection of Daniel Craig as the next Bond. "But he's blonde!" "He's not handsome enough!" "He's not enough of a lady's man!" Y'all need me to call you a wah-mbulance? Get over it, crybabies. Daniel Craig IS Bond. That's right; I said it.

To be fair, I'll point out that I have no real allegiance to the Bond franchise. I'm too young to remember much about Sean Connery's forays, and I mostly rolled my eyes at the cheesiness of Brosnan's attempts. I don't despise Pierce as Bond, but come on, remember his ridiculously fake CGI surfing? He was one step away from punching out a shark.

But Daniel Craig? Now here's someone I can buy as an agent of the British Secret Intelligence Service. He's a tough, no-nonsense guy who kills without blinking and doesn't let it bother him, because, as he points out, he wouldn't be very good at his job if he did.

If you want somebody who looks like he just stepped out of a hair salon then maybe he's not your ideal, but give me a guy who actually looks like he's been in a fight or two. If I saw Craig walking down the street? I'd think twice before messing with him. If I saw Pierce Brosnan? I'd be more inclined to ask what hair conditioner he uses.

Like last year's Batman Begins, Casino Royale has reinvented a franchise. This is a darker, edgier Bond. 007 with a couple of extra shots of adrenaline. Sure, the action scenes require a small suspension of disbelief, but they deliver, and it's nice to be able to see where the budget went. Other high-dollar blockbusters should take note (COUGH Superman Returns COUGH).

You know what else I liked about the movie?

"Eva Green's rear end?"

Well, yeah, but that's not what I was talking about.

"Daniel Craig's rear end?"

What? No! Why would you even say that? Get out of here. Sheesh. I also liked that Bond was required to do most everything on his own. He had to use his mind, strength, and combat skills to get the job done. There isn't an abundance of fancy little gadgets and invisible cars. I like the basis in reality.

"Well Johnny, in your wise and omnipotent opinion, what would you say were the movie's weak points?"

Good question, observational reader. The movie runs a little long at almost 2 1/2 hours. I felt things started to drag during the third act when they spent a large amount of time focusing on the romance between Bond and Vesper. We're talking long stretches of Bond on the beach and in bed, telling Vesper his desire to give up his profession for her. Yeah, yeah, we get it - now give us some action!

A better integration of the action and slower scenes would have helped the pace move more briskly, so a runtime trim wouldn't have hurt my feelings. No big deal though. From a pure entertainment perspective, this doesn't disappoint.

If the "purists" are still out there whining and complaining then ignore them. Daniel Craig has done something that Pierce Brosnan never accomplished - he's made me look forward to the next installment in the series. I think we've found a new, legitimate action hero. Thanks, Mr. Craig, you've shown me that Bond can rise above sexual escapades and cheesy one-liners. Bravo!

Hey Pierce? Enjoy making Mrs. Doubtfire 2. Your services are no longer required. You may go now.
1/10
James Bond - shaken, but not stirring
TongueFu8 October 2007
There's only one problem with this James Bond movie. The protagonist is not James Bond. Not the James Bond that we've all come to know and love, anyway. I have no objection to Daniel Craig as the new Bond. I think he's a fine choice. I just wish they'd given him a real James Bond story in which to make his debut. Casino Royale may have been the novel that introduced James Bond to the world, but Casino Royale, the updated and filtered movie, seems to want to subtract all the James Bond elements and pull the wool over the eyes of the public that came to know 007 through all the previous James Bond movies. This movie may be about an agent called James Bond, but he ain't THE James Bond. The producers seem to have either forgotten or completely ignored all the elements that make a James Bond movie a James Bond movie. At no point did I feel like I was watching a story about our favorite secret agent. The makers of this movie didn't even have the decency to greet us with the familiar James Bond theme music. I have no idea what the music accompanying this movie was, but, unlike the original James Bond theme, it was neither stimulating nor memorable. It added nothing at all to the film. Not only that, but the casino game of choice for Mr. Bond has always been baccarat, not poker! That may have been the most incongruous element in this movie that wants us to believe it's about James Bond. Poker seems to be everywhere nowadays, but baccarat is a game that's hardly ever seen in movies of the modern era, but it's much easier for the uninitiated to follow. A viewer does not have to know anything about baccarat to follow the action. You only need to understand the value of each card and know how to count. To follow poker, you must have an understanding of the value of each hand – knowledge that the average movie-goer does not possess. Winning at poker requires skill whereas winning at baccarat requires mostly pure dumb luck. Not knowing which player lady luck is going to smile upon lends more of an air of suspense to the action, in my opinion. James Bond without baccarat or his favorite martini (shaken, not stirred) is not really James Bond.
1/10
Worst Episode Ever.
xx468 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the immortal words of comic book store guy.

This is my first ever film review - I normally wouldn't bother, but I'm so angry and insulted by what they have done.

If you are a James Bond movie fan - do not torture yourself by watching this awful film. Poor Cubby would be rolling in his grave. It's a horrible way to ruin the most successful movie series of all time. I went into this movie with an open mind. I thought Brosnan was the best Bond and was disappointed he didn't get a look in for the latest film. In retrospect I'm glad he didn't. Right from the very first second, the first shot you can see from the camera angle and music overtone they had mangled the whole concept of the series. The intro scene was frankly boring, Bond has lost the sense of fun and adventure. The title sequence was frankly pointless. They missed with the gun-logo image. Vastly increasing the barrel twists - no gun has that may barrel twists, it was just stupid. The theme music was loud and bland. Gone from the title sequence were shadowy naked girls, replaced with dinky cut outs of the new bond, very 1960's. The film has lost it's sense of humour - perhaps 2 scenes raised a vague chuckle in the audience. The card playing scene went on for ages. Realistically no such card game would go on and on in real life and felt like forever in the film. Bond was no longer suave or sophisticated or in control. It's great that the writers wanted to write a "serious" spy thriller - they just shouldn't have put the Bond moniker on it. Call him Billy Ball-less instead or something. The film feels like it was written by a critic-pandering femi-nazi. For a so-called serious film there are just too many plot holes. (Why not just arrest the bad guy if you need him? Why bother with the whole long pointless card game?) The few stunt sequences seem totally unrealistic - such as jumping between cranes or onto buildings. (For a "serious" spy film.) The music score was extremely boring. Lost until the final sequence was the usual Bond refrain. The music was entirely unremarkable otherwise throughout the entire film. The villains were boring too, just some unspecific terrorists and their supporters. Who cares if they were out and about or not? They only wanted to blow up an empty plane. The whole torture scene was just pathetic too. I know it is supposed to be in the books, but Bond left Ian Flemmings books a long time ago.

It is an insult to all of the loyal Bond fans. I suspect they will be lucky to squeeze one more movie out before it all ends, as they have lost their fan base and critics don't pay for their movie tickets, and the novelty will be gone. It's now, lamentably, just another try-hard spy film and loses everything that made Bond special. The whole film was just lame and I will recommend to everyone that they don't see it. This one won't be joining my Bond DVD collection and I won't be seeing another film if they are going to be like this.

The Producers, Writers, Directors and Editors ought to be ashamed of themselves. Acting was OK, although it just seemed to be Bond trying to act with his eyes.

I want my $15 back.
10/10
(best bond ever)
Anonymous_Maxine8 November 2008
So the reason my summary line is lower case and in parentheses is because initially I had it all in capital letters followed by your everyday period, but the IMDb politely told me DO NOT SHOUT in your summary line. So it's a whisper. Happy now?

Anyway, when I say that Casino Royale is the best Bond ever, I mean that it's the best film, although I would argue that Daniel Craig is also one of the best actors to play James Bond, maybe second only to Sean Connery. He fits the role of a younger 007 with such flawless precision that it's amazing to me that there is any controversy at all about his casting. I have heard that there were a lot of people that were upset that they cast a blonde guy in the role of 007, but that just strikes be as such a shallow and ridiculous complaint that I don't bother to take it seriously.

Having watched Die Another Day just before watching Casino Royale again, I am struck by how much more realistic the plot of this film is. There is nothing totally outlandish about the villain or the plot, and Bond is not presented as an infallible superspy. In fact, I think that's one of the best things about the movie. It's a prequel to all of the preceding films in the series, and Bond has just received his 00 status.

Craig gives us a portrayal of James Bond that's totally different from anything we've ever seen before. He's reckless and unpredictable, he allows his emotions to control him and he makes drastic mistakes. Craig gives us a younger and less experienced 007, showing us some of the formative experiences that made him into the character that we have come to know and love. Bond is embarking on his first mission since being granted 00 status, and his learning experience is not without difficulties.

A man named Le Chiffre makes a living by bankrolling terrorists, and after losing $100 million of his terrorist investors' money in a botched attempt to destroy a prototype plane that would revolutionize the air travel industry, he has to win back the money in a high- stakes poker game or face their wrath.

I just have to say that it's amazing that a Bond film that's about 30 minutes longer than the average 007 movie can be centered around a card game and still flow so smoothly and so quickly. Despite having not the slightest interest in poker, I was never for a second bored during the card playing scenes, which should tell you something about how well-made the movie is.

Le Chiffre is also one of the best villains of the series. He's scarred and has a bad eye that occasionally leaks blood (although he assures one of his investors early in the movie, "Weeping blood is only because of a deranged tear duct, nothing sinister." Right!). He has no plans for world domination of global destruction, but is instead in the very real world position of a bank-roller of terrorist organizations.

After the botched attempt to destroy a prototype airplane and thus generate a tremendous amount of money in the stock market, Le Chiffre instead loses more than $100 million, so he sets out to use his tremendous mathematical ingenuity to win back the money in the high- stakes poker game. MI6 sends Bond to participate in the game, informing him that if he loses, the British government will have directly financed terrorism.

The stunningly beautiful Eva Green stars as Vesper Lynd, who must surely be the classiest and most intelligent Bond girl ever, as well as the one with the most important and unique role and impact on Bond's life. Bond's experience in knowing her is not always good but it has an effect on him that affects who he is, and no Bond girl has ever done that before, except maybe for the woman Bond married in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969.

Best one-liner:

Bond: "Vodka martini."

Bartender: "Shaken or stirred?"

Bond: "Do I look like I give a damn?"

By the way, can I just ask one question? Why doesn't anyone EVER do CPR right in the movies?
7/10
A new lease of life for Bond
monk_e_fish22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Writers Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (with a little help from Crash's Paul Haggis) have gone literally right back to the drawing board with this one by adapting writer Ian Fleming's very first Bond novel. So, what we get here is an origin story, stripped of the usual gadgets and excess, a film that shows how Bond became the character we know and explores just what it takes to be that character. The opening pre-credits scene is like nothing you have ever seen in a Bond movie before. Filmed in stark black and white we see Bond confront an MI6 traitor with flashbacks to his first kill, a crunchingly brutal fight in a toilet. This really is a radical departure, a Bond who is clearly in pain when he gets hit and who is clearly quite emotionally moved by the brutal pain he inflicts. Back in the present, he dispatches the traitor with a harsh coldness that indicates how the job has already begun to sap some of his humanity. It's a great scene that promises a harsh and dirty hit-man thriller and leads, via a clever use of the famous iris intro, into an opening credits sequence with great retro style and not a gyrating female silhouette in sight. After the credits, we are back in conventional Bond territory with a dramatic, stunt filled chase and fight sequence as our hero tries to capture a terrorist bomb maker. Thrilling though this scene is in moments, this is also where Casino Royale's problems seem to kick in. In adapting Fleming's thin novella with its limited numbers of characters and locations, Purvis and Wade decide to add in a wider plot of more conventional James Bond action moments that don't exactly sit right with the other parts. There are times when it feels like a film that wants to have its cake and eat it, that there are two very different films here awkwardly stuck together. Fortunately, both of these two films are pretty enjoyable. The action part containing some classic Bond moments in suitably beautiful, exotic settings like the Bahamas and Montenegro, in particular the opening chase involving parkour expert Sebastien Foucan leaping around cranes and scaffolding on a building site. It looks great but there is also a real sense of danger. In his second Bond picture after revitalising the series once before with the excellent post-Cold War Goldeneye, director Martin Campbell brings a visceral painful quality to the fights and stunts. Each punch and fall is loudly and sickeningly soundtracked to give a real feeling of pain while Bond seems to be scrambling just to hold on and stay alive in moments like the airport sequence, stunts more reminiscent of the seat of your pants Indiana Jones style than the invulnerable Roger Moore. However, despite the undoubted enjoyment in these action moments, the real quality of this film is in the central Casino Royale scenes and there is a certain shame in the filmmakers having not stuck to their guns and made a smaller, more intimate and stylishly retro spy thriller like this. Campbell has an impressive ability to draw out the tension in the card game while keeping the intervals between play packed with intrigue and bursts of tough action. The intimacy of the poker game allows for the film to truly explore a close confrontation between Bond and villain Le Chiffre, an impressively inscrutable Mads Mikkelsen, sporting a classic Bond villain scar and some creepy tears of blood. This section, and the film as a whole, really kicks into gear with the first introduction of the girl, Eva Green's Vesper Lynd, on a train across Europe engaging in some dinner table banter with Bond reminiscent of the glamour and spark of Cary Grant and Eve Marie Saint in North by Northwest. While the film's other girls are more the clichéd Bond girl eye candy, Vesper is a real match for Bond. With a strong, convincing performance from Green, the French actress delivering an impressive cut glass English accent, Vesper is smart, sassy and easily the sexiest accountant ever on film. She is a strong woman but not in the sense of Halle Berry's cartoonish Jinx in the last film, a male action stereotype grafted onto a female character. Vesper gives as good as she gets but is still a feminine character and is actually bothered by what Bond does for a living which makes a refreshing change, the scene where she breaks down in the shower after witnessing, and playing a part in, a particularly brutal killing is a level of emotional intensity and realism that we do not expect from a Bond film. Green as Vesper is easily one of the best Bond girls in any film in the series. Of course, the real strength of Casino Royale is in Bond himself, the character having greater depth and range and strongly played by Daniel Craig dispelling all the initial doubts about his casting. While Craig's emotional coldness is often a problem in his other films, it perfectly fits the callous aspect of Bond's character but Craig is also able to turn on the charm if needs be. The film cleverly plays with a few of the character's conventions, having him win a gorgeous 1960s Aston Martin in an early poker game and being not remotely bothered whether his Martini is shaken or stirred after ordering a drink in a flustered moment. Craig brings a combination of being the first Bond to be really in pain physically and emotionally and being the first to truly convince as someone who can do what he does. His impressive musculature is obvious and its clear that here is a man who could take you out, while he obviously has no trouble with a gun either. It will be interesting to see where Bond goes from here and whether the producers stick to this bold new direction or quickly revert to the old clichés as in the Brosnan years.
1/10
This movie is the beginning of the end =(
kmschuzer29 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
=Many spoilers= Many of the James bond movies were based of books, this movie was based off of the FIRST James Bond novel ever written by Ian Fleming! This movie had HUGE potential and failed miserably in every category imaginable, and I know because I read this book first, and the book was excellent.

The moment I saw the new "dripping blood" opening I knew this movie already lost my loyal James bond fan attention, they changed something that had been the trademark of bond films since "From Russia With Love", the second movie ever made. And where did all the females go during the opening credits? During the opening credits there were no gorgeous half/fully nude woman and on top of that you had a theme song that was not suited for a James bond movie. My list goes on endlessly, but for example, this is the prelude to the older 007 movies right?,the first to be exact,and thats what it was attempting to portray. Then why isn,t he carrying a beretta like he does in the beginning of "Dr No" and he does in the book, and where does the Aston martin come into this picture, it didn't make its debut until "Goldfinger", in the book he drove a Bentley in which he crashed.

And the 2 worst screw ups of all time, it was a high stakes game of baccarat, a gambling card game they play in the book, NOT poker! And the entire ending is completely made up, it made me sit around for an extra 2o minutes, in the book Vesper poisons herself and leaves a note stating she was a double agent, and the books ends with bond saying, "The Bitch Is Dead Now", clean, simple, and straight to the point. Many who read this will think that I am nuts for being so true to the book, but it is the way I am, a hard core James bond fan, and how terrible I thought this movie was written and put together, it should have been the first, and it might has well been portrayed in the future and not the 50's when it was written. This movie should be banished from the 007 series.
3/10
James who?
colinbell16 May 2007
Oh, dear James, how deep have you sunk! From a charming gentleman to nothing but a common thug! Ian Fleming would turn in his grave could he see it! (I'm surprised that this movie has got such high ratings, but I guess many people have never seen the 'older' kind.) I was never much of a James Bond fan, but in its first conceived version at least the movies had some originality and imagination, including interesting gadgetry. But this 'new' James Bond movie has not much more in common with the original idea than the name. And it all looks like we've seen it all before. Ian Fleming could sue the makers of this movie for misusing the name, but, what a shame, he is dead. …And so is James Bond.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The end of a long tradition
Torgut9 December 2007
The selection of Craig as the English gentleman that Ian Flemming created a few dozen years ago was the first sign. The killing of an old myth, built along 45 years was about to succeed. Being 41 years old, I grew up following Bond stories. Naturally some changes had to be implemented, to follow world politics trends and cinema evolution. Which was OK. Then, came the end. After destroying the basics of a hero concepts nothing remains... but a whole new concept.

When the hero looks (and partially acts) as the villain something is wrong. "Evolution", some may say. "A Great action movie", some other will add. For me it's just another movie. Like the Mission Impossible or the Bourne trilogies (so far). So, if we call it something else I could accept Casino Royale as a valid movie.

But never a Bond. Because there is no Bond in this movie except in the name. Is he a ghost? An impostor? Whatever he is, it certainly means the end. Now I know for sure that the Bond series is over, and that some guys created a new concept, designed for easily sell accordingly to the modern audience demands. Probably there was no space anymore in this world for the gallant hero who survived for four decades. I'm sorry for that.
10/10
A fresh gaze at the bond films.
pointsetta35030 November 2006
I'll admit, I never saw any Bond films in my younger days. I am in my early thirties, and I have always loved to watch action movies, but I never considered the Bond films before, and with new, and different things happening in this new film, I rented all the Bond films I could...and then I went to see this movie. I LOVED it. I'll admit, I wish I had been more of a fan in the know of the character before this film was released, but oh well, I had a lot of fun. I can't wait to see more bond films with Daniel Craig. I liked him in "Layer Cake" and the recent biopic film "Infamous", so I wasn't too surprised...I was actually blasted with amazement! This guy is a real actor...not a 'star', but an "Actor". I really like this guy. I also liked this film.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fake
vekman7928 November 2006
This is not a James Bond movie. It's an action movie with a fairly good plot, disgusting violence and poor lead actor. He is not Bond.. no style, no British elegance - nothing that we think of when we think of the most famous British agent.

But too many people like it - unfortunately. First I was happy to hear that Brosnan doesn't play this role anymore - now I already miss him. He was fairly good with Salma Hayek playing a diamond thief - now if only he could have performed like that in JB movie..

The theme score for this movie isn't as bad as I thought at first. The chase scene at the beginning of the movie is great, just see the moves the actor who's running away from JB is doing. Wow!
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
James Bond .. Relatively Stirred not Shaken (SPOILERS)
Intacto28 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watched this on Wednesday at a Ford Screening in London and came out feeling fairly satisfied with this latest offering from the Broccolis .. A complex tale of intrigue, middle men, money laundering , and Gambling at the Casino Royale with Daniel Craig in his first outing as Bond ! James Bond. The film engages you from the off with the usual whambamb action man sequences, the relentless set pieces are more like an Indiana Jones movie, dramatically spiced up with the Parkour free style running, edgy imaginative sets and use of height to scare the Living Daylights out of you !! .. Forget the popcorn you need a dozen red bull to keep u going in this energy sapping intro ! So what now for Bond well he keeps on going unbelievable so, and morphs into Bruce Willis in Die Hard with a Vengeance in an elaborate if not overly long Airport action scene which includes wait for it,, wait for it celebrity placement .. yes forget Sony, Rolex or Gucci ,, try Richard Branson !! The dialogue is minimal and the action is to the Max !!! So now we are in Montenegro and the intrigue begins with an exhausted Bond who decides to confront the kingpin of terrorist Money Laundering Chifre or as I know him Tommy out of The much acclaimed Danish pusher Trilogy .. It moves from the Motorway to the pedestrian sidewalk and ambles on with recurring exchanges between Bond and Chifre over a tense game of Poker playing for Zillions of money.

We are reminded of Bonds new darker violent side with scenes of sporadic violence which keeps the interest level above freezing as it moves closer to the two hour mark To be honest it never gets boring and is more than watchable but you begin to wonder and ask questions,, who is that ?? What is going on,, ? Are you joking ? the film becomes disjointed in places and the plot holes become an irritation and the cheesy lovey dovey scenes should have been shot at Dawn.. Do these people ever learn !!! The impressively imaginative finale on the 2hour 25 mark re energises the movie as the sparring moves to a Sinking venetion House with Bond evading more bullets than your typical Zombie !!! Entertaining enough
7/10
As anyone said they were "stirred AND shaken" yet?
GiraffeDoor11 March 2020
I was never interested in Bond as a kid but when my parents took 13 year old me to this picture I can't say I wasn't impressed.

This new serious Bond was really quite something: yes there were tuxedoes and gadgets galore but it captured something a lot more visceral, more masculine, more vulnerable.

Danial Craig's new interpretation suggests an individual worn down by a post-imperialist government into a killing machine that still has some humanity left deep down and struggling (futilely) to get out.

A lot of this movie is that card game and it does stretch the patience, as chic as the whole thing is. Certainly it overstays its welcome with a convoluted plot but that's not why we came anyway. Either way the set pieces are stunning, the script can be taken seriously and it will forever be on emblem to the harder Bond before we all got sick of Craig's face.
One of the best, compliments all that is Bond
amesmonde19 November 2006
Set in the present day, in a time-line of Bond's early years, after receiving his 00 status he must stop banker villain Le Chiffre from winning a poker tournament at Casino Royale that is funding terrorism.

Director Martin Campbell after an old-school approach to Goldeneye delivers a thrilling and grounded vision of Bond. There's a great modern use of angles and camera movement techniques.

Casino Royale is a must see for all Bond fans, old and new. It is simply, Bondtastic! With less gadgets and more realistic tech tools, Bond relies more on his training and wits. Everything is there on screen, exquisite locations, guns, cars, action and there are many nods to the books too. Although some of the characters from the series are missing, they're surprisingly not missed and the spirit feels they may appear in future films.

With Neal Purvis & Robert Wade excellent screenplay coupled with a fantastic score, stunts and drama this movie is far more gritty. The character Felix Leiter makes an appearance this time played by Jeffrey Wright. Judi Dench returns as 'M' and there are notable performances from the excellent and subtle Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis. In addition, the villain is less than stereotype with Mads Mikkelsen in the role of Le Chiffre.

Daniel Craig is mesmerising as Ian Fleming's British spy, James Bond. Less humour, harder, infused with emotion, Bond is lean and dangerous.

It's a great entry and hopefully a sign of things to come.
2/10
This Bogus Bond
andrew-sacco6 March 2007
To anyone who thinks this is "one of the greatest Bond movies" I say "baloney". It is a dark, brooding Bond that you cannot like. Bond has always been portrayed as witty, jovial and sophisticated with a sense of humor. This Bond is none of that. I do not recognize anything Bondish about it! It veers too far from what we've known Bond to be. I do not appreciate this attempt to recreate a new persona, after the image we have of Bond- which has been so consistently developed now for so many years. It has none of the tongue-and-cheek character that makes all the violence redeemable. It's just an action movie, with someone claiming to be Bond in it. Thumbs down.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Is it a Bond Film - I don't think so . . . . . . . . . .
doctor-warlock20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
40 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a self confessed Bond fan, always have been. So I was looking forward to Casino Royale, even though I didn't really think Daniel Craig was "right" as Bond (he is more memorable as his thuggish character from 'Layer Cake') but being a fan I thought I would have to give it a go.

So, I settled down to enjoy the new Bond film.

Enjoy is too strong a word.

Its not rubbish or anything like that, and it is well made and tightly Written and Directed - BUT (theres always a big but isn't there Lol) its not a Bond Film. It doesn't even bear a resemblance to a Bond novel (which differ in many ways to the Films on Ian Flemings insistence).

Its more like the Bourne supremacy in style, great if you are a fan of American action films admittedly. Clever in places (mainly due to Flemings original plot sneaking through), and great looking (sets and costumes near perfect). The whole thing is very slick and "American".

The reason why they have gone back to Casino Royale (Bonds first mission) is to "re-set" the whole legend I would think. To try and do this is wrong, they are (sort of) making a prequel here, but it has no real relation to what has gone before.

Unfortunately, Bonds witty dialogue now comes over as crass and arrogant rather than sharp and smart - in point -

Bartender: Shaken or stirred? James Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?

My reaction was "Huh"?

A couple of things annoyed me too, if its Bonds first mission - why is M a Woman? She replaced 'Him' to give the Bond Movies a more modern resonance. M was a man in Casino Royale, it might be a little misogynistic of me to point this out - but they have changed WAY too much!

Pretty much gone are the gadgets too, only to be replaced by an overly muscular killer with no morals or ability to empathise with anyone. In the PC 2000's this bond is a thug, cruel and unpleasant with little or no style IMHO.

Judy Dench looks like she is unsure why she is there, and to be honest I was thinking that too - she is much more talented than the script or direction gives her credit for.

Its is violent and funny in places (not Bond funny, to me it lacks wit and charm) and the action scenes are very well shot and directed indeed.

But is it a Bond Movie -

I don't think so.

Drew
1/10
I am sorry, I must have been in the wrong theater...
shiloo26 November 2006
When I heard all the comments from the media about the movie I chose to ignore it and give the movie a chance, as well as the actor. I was very disappointed, mostly because of the fact that the only thing that had to do with the other James Bond movies was the music at the end. Maybe James Bond had to be changed to a brute killing machine who has a conscience, to a not so smart and clever street thug with no style and no sense of humor. James Bond has alway been something of a Casanova, a macho with style, manners and sex appeal. James Bond had the best tools that her Majesty's Inntelligence could think of, and they were fun to be watched in action. James Bond could wipe out a whole gangster syndicate in a week and always appear clean and tidy at every cocktail party during this week.

Whatever this movie was, and it was not such a bad action movie, maybe the typical no brain pure action movie a la Terminator (I watched 'em all and liked 'em) it just wasn't a Bond. Every James Bond movies until now was extremely unrealistic, one guy who knows it all, saves the world singlehanded and sleeps with the most beautiful women and at the end always says something funny. One of the few places in the world where women don't rule the universe. Mrs. Brocoli, I am sorry that James Bond was primarily done for men, so why did you have to ruin a franchise with such a simple formula: Beautiful women+cool cars+cool gadgets+style+humor

Every James Bond movie in the past did one thing this movies didn't, it didn't take itself too serious, something this movies lacked so much... Sorry James Bond, but I fear you have retired forever.
3/10
2 hours of scenic shots, bad acting, and a middle-aged man's nipples
houndofh3ll25 December 2006
What a terrible movie, and not just for the "James Bond Genre" but for all movies in general. The directing was terrible, and there were nearly 5 or 6 denouements and climactic points: well at least it felt as though the director wanted these scenes to be climactic.

The main antagonist (I think, because it is even an uncertainty regarding who was truly the main antagonist) has the special ability to have his eye's bleed. When the director wasn't focusing in on James Bond's nipples, hes boring us to death with scenic shots of what looks like Switzerland. Most likely this was the director's first time traveling to this country and he used the main filming camera as most tourists would for taking pictures of sites.

Terrible movie, and perhaps the worst I've ever seen, if not only second to "Doom" starring The Rock.
7/10
Bond is Back.
irisstrings19 November 2006
"Name is Bond, James Bond". For almost half a century this line has been a victim of praise and criticism. Starting from Dr No (1962) starring Sean Connery Bond movies have always been on the lists of top action flicks. New movie's arrival is always awaited. At the same time signing up of a new bond has never escaped controversy. Daniel Craig is no exception to the "New James Bond" controversy. If you have heard, during the golden era of Hollywood, that included screwball comedies and Frank Sinatra, the actors were popular for their grace and their image among the audiences. Perhaps acting department was not on their to do list. Then came Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront (1954). He was never worried about how he looked or his social image among the viewers. Not only people accepted him but he was honoured with his first Academy Award. What Daniel Craig has done for James Bond is exactly what Marlon Brando did for the movies. Until Daniel Craig all the actors who played bond used their grace and style to play the character. But Daniel's presence in the action and the acting department has given this new Bond a really never before seen look.

Is this new Bond capable of what we think? Well as the stiry advances we come to know that Craig's promotion makes him James Bond but there are no gadgets and just one leather dashboard Ashton Martin (well let's give him one). We never know clearly till the end what his job is. All we know vaguely that he has to stop a banker from winning a casino Hold 'em tournament and suposedly funding a terrorist organization. Well the first few sequences not just prove that Daniel is capable but he is rather the only bond who is convincing in his job as a secret agent, ever. Daniel has changed all the parameters of James Bond which makes this movie a must see.

Although there are times when the movie drags a little bit, feels like a holiday romantic movie. But that's not what you remember when it ends. The screenplay is filled with humor, pace, romance and one liners. Perfect for an action thriller. As per the original myths and conventions two ladies add to the story. Not to mention swimsuits and cocktail dresses. In the movie the writers almost were going to reveal M's real name but it ended up being another humorous addition. On a final note I would like to mention that last year Batman Begins (2005) portrayed Bruce Wayne's quest to become the superhero. In Spiderman-2 (2004) Peter Parker's character study was done. Seems like James Bond has gone under the same treatment of character study. Thats why this is a must see. Rating: 7/10.
8/10
MAGNIFICENT.
andrewchristianjr6 May 2020
Magnificent Movie. The action is great. Character development is awesome. Daniel Craig was born to play this role. The action keeps you on the edge of your seat
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A bit more realistic
YaumingYMC16 November 2006
Just watched Casino Royale- based on the 1st James Bond book. I was fortune to get tickets for the premiere (here in Singapore).

Its pretty good- I'd say there is an emphasis on realism... comparatively speaking. The previous JB films were pure fantasy, almost parody. You know- shooting lasers using massive space satellites in outer space.

Except for one or two silly plot holes, which initially is not so apparent, this new film held up pretty well. Watch out for the vague reference to the Ong-Bak film at the start of the show. I thought the start was too laid back, old school.

The new Bond is more of a throwback to the young Sean Connery, suave, charming, deadly with a hint of brutality and menace. The previous Bond was too fakey and artificial.

This one takes it cue from the Bourne Supremacy rather than Phantom Menace. Less on special effects- more on style and plot.

Its cool. Watch it. And somehow you'll end up being a little bit more motivated to go to the gym.
4/10
This is Bond territory previously covered
belialprod17 November 2006
I am a long time Bond geek. I have framed posters in the house. On my honeymoon in Niagara Falls, I stopped at the MGM store and spent way too much on Bond swag. My wife has learned to live with this harmless obsession. So, this is not the mere ramblings of the uninformed. There are a number of reasons why I disliked "Casino Royale", but as most aspects of the like/dislike Craig arena have been covered ad nauseum, as have reviews of its entertainmen value, I'll confine myself to one. One of the reasons why "Casino" is being applauded is because it creates, with apparent brilliantly unpaved territory, a baseline for why Bond became the dark, cold individual he is. Ruined due to the love of a woman, hurt, damaged, etc. This created the kind of emotionally barren character who, indeed, could have a licence to kill. Four words folks: "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". I'll leave it at that.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awfully bad prequel !!!
AboundInGoodness7 April 2007
You know those movies that you sit in and say "bullshitt" throughout the whole movie. Well, this is one of them. I guess some of the Bond fans are used to it, but I hate it.

The writers are either stupid or they think the viewers are stupid. This prequel is in the year....2006. Yes, some prequel!!! M is the same M from the recent Bond films. Yes and this is suppose to be Bond's first assignment! Stupid!!!!!!!

To tell you the truth, I only watched the first 30 minutes of the film. Not really interested in seeing the rest.

Does anybody care that Hollywood puts out such trash these days? All they want is your money and gives you nothing in return.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bring Pierce Brosnan back!
revjacobmorrison12 December 2006
The Movie was good. However true Bond fans will have a problem with the history of the film, M , and his 00 status. Daniel Craig does a good job in the movie "not having Bonds wit", but it's his physical look that is the problem, he simply does not look like James Bond. The film just does not ad up to the others and looks more like a Mission Impossible, not a Bond film. It's like changing the color of gold. The film is trying to update a image that does not need to be updated, if I wanted to watch drama I would find it. I want an action adventure with gadgets and hot chicks and a larger that life super agent. It was OK but I say bring Pierce Brosnan back
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Reboot the Franchise sorely needed
davidmvining10 March 2020
I don't think the Bond franchise needed a reboot after Licence to Kill with Goldeneye, but it definitely needed one after Die Another Day with Casino Royale. The franchise had devolved into silly setups with mishmashed storytelling while contrasting horribly with the central take on the character. It needed to step back and re-evaluate how to tell Bond stories. The Bond franchise has almost always been a follower of fashions rather than a leader, so it followed the Batman Begins formula, providing audiences with a down to earth re-appraisal of the beginnings of the central character after an outlandish take that had lost complete sight of that character. It pulls it off really well.

In my eyes, Bond really stopped being a character with Diamonds are Forever. Connery's last outing and Moore's entire run were built around Bond as an archetype through which to have an adventure rather than a character with motives. Dalton brought us closer, and Brosnan further from that ideal, but with Daniel Craig's first Bond adventure, we have the first Bond film that treats 007 as a real person in more than 30 years. Using his first foray into the spy world as a 00 agent is a smart move, and using Ian Fleming's first published story about the character helped as well.

The opening pre-credits sequence announces to the world that this is a very different take on Bond. The black and white photography (that doesn't really look like it was filmed that way, but converted later) and the gritty hand to hand combat in a bathroom are a different universe from space lasers and invisible cars. With his 00 status firmly in hand, Bond sets out on his (now color) first mission to investigate a terrorist money operation, starting in Madagascar and a bomb maker. The action scene that follows is great, but it left me with a thought.

I sometimes talk about sequences that could be hard cut out of films without really noticing, and the part of the action scene in the construction site is one of those. It'd be easy to simply cut it out without noticing it from a story perspective, but I'd never recommend it. Why not? Well, it's actually fun, and it also demonstrates this Bond's approach to his job. The bomb maker he's chasing is an expert in Parkour, jumping around and over things while flying through others almost balletically while Bond crashes through (once time literally through a wall), keeping up his momentum by making his own straight lines in contrast to the bomb maker's more elegant paths. It's a fun scene that adds little in terms of plot, highlights our central character's approach to his job, and is exciting to boot.

Anyway, the money operation is run by a man named Le Chiffre who has a dead, and occasionally bleeding, left eye. He bets all of his terrorist money on the shorting of the stock of an airline, planning on blowing up their new prototype airliner and sinking their stock, but Bond follows the trail from the bombmaker he takes care of in Madagascar to foil the plan (in another really well executed action scene at Miami's airport), wiping out Le Chiffre's holdings. In an effort to rebuild the fortune he lost (the money held by some of the world's worst terrorists), he sets up a high stakes card game in Montenegro at the eponymous Casino Royale. Being the agency's best poker player, M sends Bond to play in the game.

Getting to Montenegro, we get introduced to the other great triumph of this film, Vesper Lynd, the money and Bond's love interest in the film. There have been several times in the franchise that they've tried to replicate the success of Bond's relationship to the Countess Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, from Anya Amasova in The Spy Who Loved Me to the inversion Elektra in The World is Not Enough, but none of them have succeeded for different reasons. Vesper is the first to do so, and it's because the movie is actually taking its characters seriously. Bond feels like a real man, and Vesper feels like a real woman. They have chemistry. They bicker in playful ways. Their relationship feels natural, and the movie actually dedicates time to it.

There's a moment, about halfway through the adventure in Montenegro, where Bond kills some African terrorists in front of Lynd, and she's completely shaken up by the sight. She's an accountant, not a secret agent, and she'd never had to see anything like that. That the movie actually treats her seriously like that is a testament, but that Bond actually reaches out to her, sitting down next to her fully clothed in the shower just to hold her, is a testament to how good the work on the characters is in this movie. Bond's self-imposed armor against attachment and women is coming down as he watches this frail, attractive woman undone by the world that he lives in.

I will say this, though, I hate that they used Texas Hold 'Em as the card game. I understand why they did it. It's much more popular and more people understand the rules than Baccarat, but Texas Hold 'Em is far too American for a Euro-centric spy story about James Bond. The final hand where everyone has some great combination of cards is ridiculous and outside the realm of the grounded realism of the film. But what would a poker tournament in a movie be if the final hand was won by a low pair on a bluff, I guess.

Anyway, Bond wins, Le Chiffre loses, and Bond gets captured. It's the point in the film where Moore would have been placed in an easily escapable death trap. Instead, Bond gets tied to a chair and Le Chiffre pulverizes his testicles, only saved by the men that Le Chiffre answers to exacting their revenge on him. This is another moment to talk about Diamonds are Forever. I criticized that film because Bond got saved from a certain death situation, but the problem there was that it felt completely random. The world around Le Chiffre, the shadowy Mr. White, the constant threats of violence from his creditors, and the later revelations, make this escape where Bond does nothing feels much more interesting and satisfying. It's not that Bond didn't do anything to escape, it's that the situation of his escape makes more sense and feels natural.

The movie then fakes out the audience with an unexpected ending where Bond and Vesper run off to Venice where they promise to leave their lives behind and find honest jobs just so long as they are together, but this adventure isn't done. There are double crosses and foot chases and Vesper drowns, leaving Bond cold and angry in response. His defense is back up, and it will never come down.

As the Batman Begins style re-evaluation of the creation of an iconic character, it's smartly done. As a Bond adventure, it's exciting. As a grounded spy tale, it's fun. This is a very good Bond film, and exactly what the franchise needed.
8/10
Well I AM surprised
TheCorniestLemur3 October 2021
Oh, did anyone think I'd be watching all the Bond films before No Time To Die? Pfffffft, no way, they'll be shooting the next one by the time I'm done with that, and that's without considering university's a thing I've got to worry about again...

So here's a compromise: all the Craig era Bond films, because it was a reboot anyway, and I do not have the time to watch almost 60 years worth of films of wildly varying quality and with virtually no relation to the new one other than the main character's name, choice of drink and obscene luck with extremely sexy women.

And on that note, I'm not really a huge Bond fan to begin with, but I did try and marathon them all last year, also before No Time To Die was supposed to come out, and then...well you know how that turned out, so I only got up to Goldfinger before giving up. By that point, however, I knew enough about James Bond to know that this film is...different.

And if the entire series up to this point is a lot like those first three films, then this really is a huge shake-up. And I kind of loved it?

First off, of course Daniel Craig is perfect in this role. He's suave, badass, absolutely kills it in a nice suit, and pretty much everything that made Sean Connery the perfect fit for the role in his run as Bond. But while this is probably the darkest version of Bond yet, he isn't just a no-nonsense assassin in this film. There's a very clear sense of a vulnerable person being here, and Craig pulls that off fantastically too.

However, that wouldn't have been possible without Eva Green as Vesper, who is every bit as charming and badass as him, and my god are their scenes together loaded with some great banter and are really cute towards the end, and bring an unreal amount of sass.

And Mads Mikkelsen has been great in everything I've seen him in to date, and thankfully this is no exception. He's got the perfect amount of slimy, creepy energy to be a great Bond villain, and even better, much like Bond himself, there's a real vulnerability and desperation to him that makes him even more believable.

So overall, although there's a few things that seemed like minor plot holes to me, the story is pretty great and way more character-driven than I was expecting from a Bond film. It has great characters, a lot of interesting twists and turns, and it seems to suggest a continuing story arc for the next few films which I'm now looking forward to.

I wouldn't normally mention this, but seeing as it is a Bond film, I feel like I have to mention the opening credits sequence, which has one hell of a great song backing it up, and the imagery in it is a fairly simple idea, but turned up to the absolute max in creativity, and I though it was awesome.

If there's one complaint I had throughout, it's that although this is a really well directed and shot film, I didn't really see all that much creativity in the cinematography other than a few examples, mostly in action scenes. Goddamn this has some amazing action scenes though, and the stuntwork especially is fantastic.

So if I'm honest, this was a huge surprise, and I'm actually kind of stunned at how good this film is when I've never really been a big Bond fan beyond some old PS2 game I have a lot of nostalgia for. In case you're wondering which one, it's Agent Under Fire. I played that so much back in the day.
9/10
i think it is one of the best Bond film in years
disdressed1219 March 2007
i think this is one of the best bond films in recent memory.it'more realistic(for a Bond film)the fight scenes are better and the whole movie is just more exciting.i also thought they made Bond more human,instead of almost superhuman,like in some of the films.the movie is much more story and character based,so there are no gadgets,which i really like about this movie.also think Daniel Criag is very natural as Bond.he's a very good actor.in my mind,he is 1 of the top 2 bonds of the series.i saw this movie in the theatre,which is the best place to see it,if you have a chance.i really enjoyed myself with this movie.it is fairly long but that doesn't take anything away from the movie.the only thing i didn't like,and this is just my own personal opinion,was the title sequence.it does fit with the movie,but it just didn't do it for me.anyway,that'a minor complaint and nothing to do with the movie itself.for me,"Casino Royale" is a 9/10
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
How can you accept the film if you can't accept the Bond?
blightning11 March 2008
I totally disliked this film, because it just went ahead and threw the James Bond of lore out the window. The suave, sophisticated & witty super agent is gone. I'd rather not offend Mr Craig, but I must admit that he is the worst casted James Bond ever in the history of the series it's not his fault though because the filmmakers were the ones who chose him. I feel that if Mr Flemming or Mr. Broccoli were alive, they would not approve of the casting or even the spirit of this film. The film isn't terrible in a movie sense, but it doesn't fit as a James Bond film. James Bond has been well established in the cinema. Here James Bond has been reestablished as something else. You can either accept or reject it. I'm only 21, but even I will not accept this reinvention of Bond for a new audience or generation. I first discovered Bond as a child in awe of the magic of the films of old.I consumed them all, cheered for Bond and indulged in these adventures. Sadly that magic has faded, and boring realism and drama has taken the forefront in an attempt to reinvent Bond, though it may have been acceptable if the Bond was right and if the Bond spirit was still in tact. The attempt at believability was destroyed by an unbelievable James Bond, the original foundation is too great. Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton & Brosnan were all good acceptable James Bonds. Even Niven in the original Casino Royale, bond spoof was acceptable. They were all debonair gents. Craig doesn't portray that and he doesn't look or act right. I'd argue that Craig would be a good Villain in a Bond film.
1/10
Falsely advertised as an action movie.
Jacques9818 September 2008
If I ever need a movie to point to that did every last thing that make action movies terrible, it is now Casino Royale. It opens with one of the single cheesiest openings I've ever seen—Bond and some cheesy old guy making death threats in British accents—and in the end you realize there was less action in this movie than an episode of SpongeBob.

  • Yes, Bond is darker. But what Hollywood forgot is when you take a fun, intentionally cheesy franchise like this and try to make it grim and menacing it doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is because it's like dressing up a little girl as a serial killer—it's cute, not threatening. In this case, it dulls down everything Bond has done in the past. The Bond series was meant to be a fun action movie with lots of explosions and shootouts, not a drama like Casino Royale that only literally has two main action scenes. Yes it's darker, but it's also a movie I couldn't take seriously at all because it tries to be cheesy and hardcore at the same time.


  • The plot. Terrorists, blah, money, blah, cliché, blah, I've seen this so many times I feel like shooting my eyes out, blah. As many terrorist movies there are, you'd think 90% of the human population is a terrorist. I have nothing more to say about that. Isn't there something more interesting for Bond to kill? - The villain is pure cheese, yet the movie wants us to take him seriously. Fake eye, bleeding eye, deformed bottom lip, British accent, wears a Dr. Evil jumpsuit through parts of the movie—yup, he passes as the most cliché action villain of all time. Once again, the movie wants to be dark but elements like this just downright kill that. Entirely. Every time he came on the screen I laughed. I couldn't help it.


  • The movie does not stop talking! I will never understand why directors of ACTION movies throw in hours of talking that BORES the FANS who give them MONEY for no reason at all. If I wanted to hear talking, I'll go to the coffee shop. If I want an action movie, I'll watch things blow up. Why must there be so much pointless talking? Characters in Casino Royale talk and talk until I was ready to scream at them to shut up and turn the movie off. What are they talking about? I have no clue. Some crap about how your mother is a terrorist, or how goldfishes may be terrorists, or terrorists are terrorists, terrorists . . .


Overall, Daniel Craig is the best Bond and I think a darker tone could work in the future, but it doesn't work here. Casino Royale is not an action movie, being there are only two scenes of action in the whole movie and the rest is playing cards and talking. This is my least favorite Bond movie and my least favorite action movie of all time. At least the Bond video games are still fun and have superior (and less cheesy) writing/scripts to the films. And I just find it just downright sad that is how low this series, and action movies in general, have come.

1/10
10/10
Woooo....gooood
KASRA1020 June 2021
I will never get tired of watching the loads of this movie ... the special effects are great.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Extending The License
slokes15 August 2009
Daniel Craig would seem as likely a match with classic Bond like bratwurst with caviar, what with his broad apish shoulders, bull neck, and perpetual scowl. Yet Craig's 007 in this film represents one of the singular high points in Bond franchise history, not just by shaking our expectations but by centering a well-balanced entertainment.

Bond in the opening scene is still working on earning his double-0 status. Since this requires he kill two enemy operatives, we get a highly energetic opening that accentuates Craig's hard physicality as an actor. As the film develops, and Bond is called upon to defeat terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), Craig showcases a broader palette, especially when Bond becomes entangled with gorgeous but prickly MI6 accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green).

Craig's acting journey mirrors that of Bond in the story, evolving from being a "blunt instrument" (so-called by his boss M, played by Judi Dench) to something akin to "half-monk, half-hit man". Knowing Bond is going to survive the film is a given, but Craig's rawness and intensity keeps you from taking too much for granted.

Taken from Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, and adhering more closely to Fleming's plot than almost any other Bond movie before it, "Casino Royale" pushes the spy into new terrain without leaving old fans adrift. There's still time for a lame Bondian quip, and many familiar elements from earlier incarnations are either nodded to or vigorously added to the mix. Dench's M is the one holdover from the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, but instead of being a mere PC sop, she offers something akin to the distant but parental figure M became in the Fleming novels.

Even the look of the film is a revelation, crisp colors and natural light abounding. Director Martin Campbell finds ways to keep advancing a sometimes baroque story while serving his new star. A shower scene between Bond and Vesper manages the feat of being incredibly intimate but not sexual, and her hold on him is revealed in small moments. Asked by his contact René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) if Vesper has "melted your cold heart yet", a wordless, sheepish half-shrug by Craig tells us more than words could ever say.

People complain the movie is too long. In pure minutes, it's the longest Bond movie; other 007s like "A View To A Kill" and "Die Another Day" only felt longer. Green may overplay Vesper's hauteur early in, but as the film develops she nails the character's more complicated and transformative scenes and emerges as one of the series's best Bond girls. There's a speeding car scene late in the film that makes no sense when you reflect back on it, but other story elements taken from the original novel are actually improved upon.

And then there's Craig, whose utter awesomeness as 007 can't really be overstated. I'm more of a Roger Moore man, but Craig displays more intensity flipping cards at the poker table than Moore did scaling cliffs or clinging onto funicular cables. He's so convincing in the action scenes that his moments of humor and empathy come across even more strongly than you'd expect.

This is simply the best Bond movie since "The Spy Who Loved Me". Craig captures something no other Bond actor has, Fleming's original hardened loner who might have more going on inside than he's willing to admit. Whether he can maintain that intensity or not, he manages here to give us a Bond for the ages, and at least another decade's extension on that license to kill.
4/10
Hmmmmmmm...OK then....
Alien_Angie2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK. I went to see this movie after some serious consideration. I had seen Daniel Craig ina few other films (Layer Cake, Munich) and disliked him immensely in both. Despite being a die hard Bond fan I was seriously considering not watching this one because of the choice of Bond.

Was I glad I went? Yes...despite Craigs performance the film was immensely enjoyable. It was the strongest Bond film, and one of my major criticisms was why in the hell wasn't Pierce given any material like this? IMOm Pierce was a much stronger actor and better bond and I couldn't help but think of him in this film, instead of the cheesy popcorn Bonds he was stuck with after Goldeneye

Anyway, some time into the movie I suddenly realised that I believed that Craig was Bond, I was comparing him less and less to Pierce and was seeing him without judging him.

However, IMO there were a few major downsides to this movie.

1/ The first villain we see Bond really chase (The one he goes into the embassy for) it is never explained why they guy could jump 20 foot in the air etc...during the whole chase sequence with te black guy and Bond I felt like I was stuck in the Tigger movie. I know Bond films are meant to contain amazing stunts, and spectacular unbelievable chase sequences but this one just had me laughing in my seat.

2/ This is personal judgement, but I find DC unattractive...and Bond has always been a good looking guy. Its a big part of the film because when the film falls flat, which it does at some point in every Bond film (and I am a massive fan, I have the DVD boxset so please don't accuse me of being unloyal) and it does on occasion fall flat, DC does not have the classic Bond wit, the looks or even any personality to pull the film back. I understand them cutting back on the wit a little, to try and give the film darker edge like the novels, but there were times this film needed it, and DC had as much personality as a wet rag

3/ Judi Dench is my favourite "M" of all time, but she shouldn't have been in this movie. The point in Casino Royale was to start from the beginning...how can they start at the beginning with as Valentin Dmitrovich Zukovsky says in Goldeneye "I hear the new M is a lady?" Again, I understand that they would have wanted to keep her as familiar face to help people get used to the idea of a new Bond, but I think that they should have got a man to play "M" again like the early films, who? I have no idea...and I hate to nitpick, but as soon as M appeared the first thing I thought was that quote from Valentin

However, there are some massive upsides to this film. Apart from the first fight (the embassy scene) and the last fight (In the house in Venice) the fight scenes are much more realistic, and gritty than in previous Bond films. Q says in TWINE "I always tried to teach you two things. First, never let them see you bleed..." Q isn't in this movie but Bond does more than his fair share of bleeding which makes the film much more realistic.

Will I watch it again...certainly Am I convinced of DC as Bond...Im getting there Am I looking forward to the next one? Hell Yeah!

6.5/10
6/10
Good Movie, Bad Bond
roy_byrd320 November 2006
Last night, I went to see the long awaited Casino Royale and came away with mixed emotions. I enjoyed significant stretches of the movie but at the end, I went home unsatisfied and thinking I could've waited for this to hit the DVD shelves.

I thought the movie and the plot was characteristic and "Bond-Worthy" enough. However, the new 007 is at best "Forgettable" and it's my sincere hope that he will have the same tenure of George Lazenby (1 film, Her Majesty's Secret Service). The Bond Girl was her usual worthy hot self!!! Granted, not Hallie Berry but very sultry and sexy nonetheless. I did miss Q and his introduction of the gadgets that Bond uses to ultimately best the bad guys. Q's moments in the previous films prepare the viewers to better understand the action scenes and hopefully, his character will return in future Bond films. Speaking of "Bad Guys" "Ho Hum"! A lot could've and probably should've been done to better develop their characters.

Overall, I thought the film was worth viewing (even at $10.50), 007 notwithstanding. It is my prayer that a new Bond is discovered in time for the next film.
10/10
The best Bond film. Poker, action and a love story.
pssn17 January 2009
This is my first 10 for a film I only saw months ago. I have always liked Bond films but I was just getting bored of seeing the same thing, and not feeling like Bond himself had evolved as a character. Funnily enough, the film that stands as a prequel to all others is the one where we see character development and emotion. For once we get to see into Bond's way of thinking and why in later film's he is such a player and doesn't ever seem to settle down with a nice lady. Daniel Craig impressed me way beyond my expectations. I wasn't expecting him to have the charisma of Sean Connery but not only does he show that but he also opens the dimensions of Bond to another level. We see the rebellious side of Bond much more in this film and there is also such a contrast of extremes (the softer side and the darker, more sinister side). The opening action sequence is fantastic with the free runner and it is scenes like this that make the action much more interesting. Other Bond films rely on gadgets way too much and this film works so well without them. The poker scenes are brilliant and show Bond's competitive side and his vulnerability as Poker is essentially a game of luck as you can't always rely on tells as your opponent can be exceptionally good at bluffing, or pretending to bluff (a double-bluff). The love story pulled me in, which was a surprise. The relationship that grows between Daniel Craig and Eva Green's characters is absorbing and realistic and it makes the climax of the film have such a bigger impact. Overall, this film blew me away and deserves a place in the top 250 above films like Kill Bill Vol. 2, which is nowhere near as good as this film. I have seen Quantum of Solace recently too and Casino Royale blows it out the water. I believe it is the definitive Bond film and I hope that what comes after Quantum of Solace has the heart and depth of Casino Royale, as Quantum of Solace was made purely to show off the action sequences, which were good, but it lacked in meaning, logic and emotion.
8/10
A royale, without the cheese of its predecessors.
BecksyKane20 May 2020
Casino Royale transgresses against the familiar gun barrel intro sequence of the 007 franchise; instead blasting onto the screen with a grainy, striking monochromatic scene of Bond, in all his glory, brutally murdering a man in a public bathroom.

Following this is the opening title sequence - the first Bond to depart from silhouettes of naked women, instead opting for faceless male silhouettes; their bodies exploding into playing cards and guns shooting out hearts instead of bullets. Chris Cornell's "you know my name" is my favourite Bond soundtrack and very fitting for the Bond that's portrayed.

Daniel Craig most definitely revives a role that has been overdone. Ditching the playboy characteristics emitted from the likes of Brosnan, Craig offers a more well rounded performance as the steely assassin. Still loaded with thuggish charm, we are given the softer side of him - a romantic at heart who is actually capable of emotion. Craig is easily the best Bond there has been.

Le Chiffre defies the trope of a megalomaniac villain obsessed with world domination, which I liked. His blood spurting eye, devilish smile & the scene he tortures Bond was enough to make him menacing.

I loved that Vesper was fleshed out, and not the typical objectified woman who is bedded by Bond then killed by his enemies.

The parkour sequence & the hotel stairwell scene were edited to perfection, and though brimming with all the nail biting action you'd want - the tension created during the poker game between Craig & Mikkelson was equally captivating.

An interesting move was losing the gadgets. With no appearance from Q, and high tech gimmicks swapped for Sony Ericsson's; Casino Royale plays its strong hand with sly dialogue, believable acting and many near death experiences for the protagonist.

Con: i would have liked a scene to show the ultimatum Vesper was given
6/10
A new kind of Bond movie
nickcosto4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I write this the day after I saw the movie and without reading any other comments to avoid being biased and yes I checked the "contains spoiler" box although it is more of a warning to the type of movie this is.

First of all the best part of it: The leading man Daniel Craig. This is how I imagine a sophisticated character of an international secret agent would be. Tough and intense one moment but polished and seductive when needed.

Certainly more believable than previous characters running in the countryside in their three piece suits. But then again when did reality figured in the Bond movies?

If I think about it as a movie not from the Bond series, I would say it is good example of the spy-action genre. Therefore not the kind of movie I usually pay to see myself. But James Bond? I always go to see 007, the habit started way back and is now a ritual.

So my point is: If you want to see a usual Bond movie this is not it.

Moneypenny and Q are not in - and this is the least of it. Gadgets are -mostly- not in. Bond humor is not in (although the "Do I look like I give a damn" is priceless). Just when I though "at last a car chase" it lasted less than a minute. They filmed in Venice and there wasn't even a power boat chase! (Remember Roger Moore and the hovercraft gondola?) And even if the palazzo was magnificently sunk underwater, it does not compare with the usual utter destruction of the evil genius' lair.

Above all it is the violence that didn't work in the stylized way of the Bond movies. Here is close and "dirty", not the exploding boat - dead in the water - painted gold kind of killings.

As for the torture scene... too realistic. I still shift in my chair when I think about it. So parents keep that in mind before you allow your teens to see it.

To be honest Bond movies where a bit repetitious in the past few years. All I described missing were done so many times already. And I certainly don't miss the creased pants, impeccable tie, combed hair in the thick of the action kind of hero. I just wish the changes were one step at a time.

So there you have it: Action movie, less vintage Bond in the recipe. I thought is was good overall, but not the movie I expected.
1/10
really
christine-1121 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
31 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sean Connery was sexy and he had a subtle humor. Roger Moore didn't take James Bond seriously and he was very funny. Daniel Craig is nothing.

The film starts with a pursuit on cranes that looks nice, is highly unrealistic and therefore. somewhat funny. Unfortunately, the pursuit is not meant to be funny. It goes on and on and on, with a growing improbability of the actions, it's boring.

== spoilers in the rest of the text ==

Every scene in the film, every action, is utterly predictable. When Bond tells the girl "I love you", the friend I was at the cinema with said "that means she's going to die". Which of course she did.

The film doesn't even properly end. It ends, when Bond wins at the table and the villain is about to be captured. But then it continues. The villain gets away, and another pursuit takes place. Bond gets captured, but then miraculously doesn't get killed. The film ends, when the girl dies, the villain is dead, and the money is gone. Then again, the film continues. Another crook has the money, and he gets caught but we don't know how. In one shot Bond sees the crooks phone number and name, in the next shot he shoots him in the foot and recovers the money. Who knows how a fourth and a fifth ending may look.

Some jokes are childish. Bond gets his martini, the waiter asks "shaken or stirred" and Bond says something like "why should I care". Really...

Bond is a fan of Top Gear, so he drives a DB9. Because we may not notice that the car is a DB9, the logo is shown several times. Of course, the car crashes in a spectacular but utterly predictable way.

This film is not just the worst Bond movie ever. It's one of the worst movies ever.
9/10
Lean, mean, and the best Bond of all
theskulI4229 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had a chance to see Casino Royale back when it was originally in theaters. People talked about how much of a wonderful "return to form" it was, and I had an idea for watching all the Bond movies then, and considering what I had heard about Die Another Day, I didn't want to mess up chronology AND leave myself without a happy ending.

So, now I can say it: This isn't a return to form, this isn't an update, this is a press of the reset button. Bond is back to his lean, mean Dr. No/Living Daylights self, although this fella is even more ruthless than ol' Sean ever was, and adds suspense, intrigue and INTENSITY to the dour, joyless latter film.

There's a lot of new things for Bond here. Bond falls in love, Bond screws up and really gets in trouble for it (as opposed to the normal "Bond screws up, they yell and he does exactly the same thing), Bond gets ARRESTED, Bond gets drugged (AND ALMOST DIES!), Bond gets TORTURED, the list goes on and on.

This series has always made seem Bond impossibly invincible. It was refreshing to see him seem vulnerable (who would have thought I could say the phrase "Bond's shower scene" and come away feeling TOUCHED?). I'd never felt SUSPENSE or tension in a James Bond film, where Bond was doing something that he could get *caught* at, it's amazing.

There's also a lot MISSING from this series, there's a complete lack of gadgets (in fact, not even a Q), and most wonderfully, they have dispensed with the chintzy sex jokes. Yes, there's moments of humor, but they're all organic and subtle, based out of the story and the interaction of the characters, who, by the way, are all fleshed out to realistic depth levels. The villain is no cackling megalomaniac. He's just a drug terrorist/criminal. And he's less cartoonish than the only other halfway down-to-earth criminal (from License to Kill).

The film has also managed to bring Bond into the 21st century in a realistic sense. This isn't the "see! we're hip too! WE GOT VIDEOGAMEZ!" bent of Never Say Never Again, or the "We have an invisible car. An *INVISIBLE CAR*!" ridiculousness of Die Another Day (by the way, the cars actually break when you crash in this movie). They make an offhand reference to Photoshop and have technology for sensible reasons, not silly ones.

What's amazing about the series is that, to wipe away for memories of the Brosnan films, they brought in the creative team behind...the Brosnan films. The director of Goldeneye, the writers of The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day, and Judi Dench as M.

Acting-wise, I've already discussed Craig, Eva Green is the most intriguing, intelligent, interesting Bond girl ever, Judi Dench is just ANGRY, exasperated as Bond keeps screwing up, the villain is vicious (but not invincible!), a small role for Jeffrey Wright is understated and wonderful as always.

I know that everyone had wanted a change of pace from the Brosnan films, but I think one man had more to do with this change of pace than any: Jason Bourne. In the four years between Bond films, ol' J.B. rose up and became THE action spy king, with a more visceral, intelligent, cerebral, cold-blooded superhero, and just like 28 Days Later set the bar a little higher and helped Dawn of the Dead become as good as it was, our favorite amnesiac set the bar up here for the Bonds to jump over, and boy, did they ever.

On the technical side of things, Martin Campbell has one definitely leg up on the Bourne series: he knows how to keep his camera still during fight scenes.

It was wonderful, touching, thrilling, suspenseful, interesting, and just...the best Bond there is. And, almost as an afterthought, but I'm ranking this film not only in Bond films, but in its own year as well, and considering the weak year 2006 was, it should be no surprise that it makes my top 10 of the year as well. Good on ya, James. Keep up the good work.

{Grade: A- / #9 (of 64) of 2006 / #1 (of 22) of the James Bond series}
1/10
Untrue to the 007-series
baxie765 December 2006
It was bad. Well... no it wasn't bad... it was awful... and horrible.

A Bond movie is supposed to contain a lot of action, a lot of sweet rides, an evil villain who wants to take over the world and a few very attractive women, who knows what they want.

Casino Royale was a tacky love story with intentions of showing why Bond has a 'shaky' relationship with women making him unable to commit to a relationship.

Now I am no misogynist myself. I do enjoy movies with content challenging the brain and my feelings as well.

But one of the things I truly enjoyed up till I saw Casino Royale, was the fact that no matter what the war of the genders and political correctness made of the world, 007 would be the same suave, witty, flirtatious little boy he always were, and I would enjoy this tremendously.

In Casino Royale he nothing more than an average man.

What's the point in that?
10/10
Bond is cool again
TJ138023 November 2006
It goes without saying that the years haven't been especially kind to James Bond. The series went from being cool and genuinely exciting to campy and barely coherent. James Bond himself went from being charming, roguish, and crafty enough to be a believable secret agent to being an almost cartoonish superhero whose mannerisms had become too cliché to be considered cool by anyone. The movies and the character needed to be reinvented. Fortunately, that's exactly what we get with "Casino Royale." "Casino Royale" is easily the best Bond movie since the early Sean Connery films. It's far more engaging and exciting than the series has been in years, and for once it isn't due to ridiculous gadgets or effects-heavy action scenes. It's due to a plot that actually makes some sense, characters that are actually believable, and a note-perfect performance from Daniel Craig as James Bond. The people who go into this movie expecting the kind of nonstop action of some of the previous Bond films might be disappointed (Bond's mission is to bankrupt a man who is funding a terrorist network by beating him in a high-stakes game of poker), but the folks who want to see a more realistic take on James Bond will love this one.

Of course, the big question that everyone's been asking is whether or not Daniel Craig is any good as James Bond. While he may not look like any of the previous Bonds, he plays the role better than anyone has in years. He often comes off just as charming and likable as the character has been in the past, but in this film we see a dark side to him that we haven't seen before. There are times when he is downright cold-blooded in the way he deals with his enemies, and it's clear that part of him truly enjoys brutally killing people. He's also quite a bit more arrogant than we've seen him in the past. He's good at his job, he knows it, and he doesn't hesitate to do things that let the people around him know it. This kind of cocky confidence is really what makes James Bond the iconic character that he was years ago. He's smooth, cool, confident, and everything that most people want to be.

The most interesting thing about Craig's Bond, however, is that his cool facade is really a front. This is one of Bond's first missions, and it's clear that the fact that his job frequently involves killing people affects him more than one would expect. He's visibly shaken when he makes his first kill in the opening sequence, and at one point he seems to be afraid that his job will rob him of his humanity. There has been talk in other reviews I've read of this movie that Bond is more human in this film because he makes mistakes and gets hurt, but what I think the thing that truly humanizes the character is his conscience. He's far more compelling here than he has been in years.

As I said above, those of you who go into this movie expecting nonstop action will probably be disappointed. Most of the drama comes from a high-stakes game of poker. That may sound strange for a Bond film, but believe me when I say that it works far better than one would expect. Bond may be a tough secret agent, but he has to rely more on his wits and his ability to read his adversary to succeed. It goes a long way in making this more of a character-driven film than most of the Bond films have been. Le Chiffre isn't the typical megalomaniacal Bond villain. He has just as much to lose as Bond does, and he's clearly Bond's equal at the card table. The main conflict is a battle of wits, something that I don't see nearly enough in movies today. It is worth mentioning however that despite the lack of a lot of big action scenes, there is an extended chase scene early in the movie that is almost worth the price of admission alone. It doesn't rely on a lot of big special effects, but it features some truly impressive stunt work. It ranks up there among the most memorable Bond moments, and that's saying a lot.

Overall, I have to say that this movie was a lot better than I could have possibly imagined. If this is where the James Bond series is headed, then I will definitely look forward to the next movie.
3/10
worst bond movie
maessteve23 May 2007
I have seen all Bond movies and whit this one I almost fell asleep.

Where are all the gadgets that are so typical in Bond movies ?

Not enough action , only in the beginning it is a real bond movie, after that it's a lame movie that can't impress me. I didn't feel any excitement throughout the movie, it never gave me the feeling that I was watching a Bond movie.

Not that there was bad acting in the movie, the new James Bond can stay for me, but for the next movie I'd like to get all the gadgets en the special car back on the screen (so more action !!).

The plot was good in this ons, but the movie was so boring, I really had a hard time to watch it until the end.

The previous Bond movies were much better.
8/10
Wow, don't miss it !
Luigi Di Pilla1 April 2007
Yes, for all adventure, espionage, action and James Bond film fans this one is absolutely a must see. It delivers from the begin to the end a nonstop ride of plots and twists one by one creating in the same time great suspense. It's for the first time I saw such a muscled Bond and the cinematography with their sceneries were superb. Daniel Craig did a very damn good job here and I have all my respect for him. I am looking forward for his next Bond. I was really surprised after seeing CASINO ROYALE and I agree with other reviews that classify it as one of the best BOND ever made. Please don't get me wrong; Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan all they were great as the agent and so Craig but it's the merit of all the stuff especially from director Martin Campbell that created here a masterpiece. I always said he is one of the best of nowadays. VERTICAL LIMIT or GOLDENEYE are examples. It's very important to give the directors job for a Bond film not at anyone but the script has also to be interesting. Final vote with my wife a solid 8/10 and this is actually the best rating I gave for a Bond movie.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Predictable, Humorless and Boring travel log
pekinman1 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This latest version of Ian Fleming's novel 'Casino Royale' is the most over- rated, multi-million dollar snore I've ever seen.

The charm, yes, charm of the old Bond movies with Sean Connery, still unrivaled in the role, was the tongue-in-cheek humor that is nowhere in evidence in this new version. This turkey is 2 hours of a James Bond who must really be Spider-man and Batman all rolled into one given his super-human feats of strength, agility and breath-control, coolly intoning one of the worst scripts I've sat through since Zardoz.

The settings and women are gorgeous to be sure. Eva Green is an intriguing actress and I hope to see her again elsewhere, in a better movie, but she is here merely a mannequin for some great designer gowns and tip-top make-up and hairdos. The villain, LeChiffre, is played well by Mads Mikkelsen, but he hasn't much else to do other than look wicked and rub his bloody eye. He's no where close to the being in the league of classic villains like Dr No or Goldfinger and his big white cat.

I did enjoy getting a glimpse of old Verushka at the gambling table, with no lines beyond those on her face. Giancarlo Giannini plays his part well-enough but his lines seem to be designed solely to inform the audience what is going on at the card table.

Judi Dench, the female 'M', is good in the part but too little in evidence. And she certainly lives like a queen for a government official, a far cry from Control's austere digs in the LeCarré novels, which are much more authentic in their telling of spy stories. This film falls way short of the TV versions of 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' and 'Smiley's People.' But then, Fleming wasn't trying to be as serious as LeCarré. The producers of this 'Casino Royale' lost the plot completely when they chose to make this a relevant spy vs terrorist organization nail-biter.

The music is mediocre but fills in the long, drawn-out boring chases with lots of noisy brass and screeching violins. The F/X look expensive and there must have been an army of stunt extras to keep the viewers awake with their leapings about and dodging of bullets.

The whole film looked like a promo for a super computer action/thriller game for the 13 year olds with ADD.

Daniel Craig is pretty good as Bond. He even gives hints at a sense of humor when the Swiss banker comes to transfer the money to Bond's bank account. The banker has funny teeth. Ha-ha. That's where the humor ends in this bomb.

I'll take the old, corny but clever old Bond flicks from the 60s any day over this gilded, hair-ball of a flick.

I give it 4 out of 10 simply for the production values. I enjoyed seeing bits of Venice and the Bahamas, sort-of.

Skip it, if you haven't seen it. You aren't missing a thing.
8/10
A Different Bond Movie
eastbergholt200222 November 2006
Daniel Craig plays Bond at the beginning of his 007 career when his character is still evolving. His Bond is more down-to-earth and less cocky. The film is more character driven than its predecessors with fewer stunts, chases and explosions. The amazing gadgets and the banter with Q and Moneypenny are no more. Bond makes his first kills and the violence is grittier and less cartoonish. He falls in love with his beautiful MI6 colleague Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who is smart, witty and delightful. Unfortunately, the love story is an annoying distraction and really belongs in a different film.

Like all Bond films the plot doesn't make much sense. The Dr. Evil character is Le Chiffre, a fund manager to the world's terrorist organizations? MI6 finds out that Le Chiffre is planning to risk his client's money in a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro at Le Casino Royale. MI6 assigns 007 to use taxpayer's money to play poker against him, knowing that if Le Chiffre loses the terrorists will be short of cash. In the real world MI6 and the CIA would have arrested Le Chiffre and thrown away the key. With no backup Bond is inevitably captured and there is a strange sado-masochistic torture scene.

Although the Brosnan films had become far-fetched and formulaic they were also enjoyable in their own way. The producers have obviously watched the Bourne movies and opted for more realism. Craig is very athletic with an impressive physique but the trouble with turning Bond into a run-of-the-mill screen tough guy is that he loses some of his charm. Although Casino Royale is entertaining it could have done with more action and humor. It will be interesting to see whether the producers fall back on the traditional formula for the next flick, although the film seemed better on second viewing.
3/10
Not a 007 movie....
mercury_ship19 November 2006
this movie is just an ordinary movie... i had high hopes for this movie, but it wasn't up to the mark.. they have changed all the usual 007 style... especially it lacked the womanizer mannerism and so on... Daniel Criag couldn't do justice to this role... 007 going behind a girl for love, this absolute crap... but any way on the movie was OK... the movie might have been better if it is not labelled as James Bond... it is a huge disappointment for a huge fan like me... and the ending is such a silent ending, not the usually dramatic finish.. but anyway the producer have to seriously work on the missing elements in the next movie.. We miss u Pierce....
39 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This Was NEEDED
damianphelps27 March 2021
Pierce Brosnan (whom I have enjoyed in numerous projects) stunk like Pepi Le Pew as James Bond. Although not all the responsibility for that era of films should fall on his shoulders alone, too much reliance on gimmickry didn't help.

Enter Daniel Craig. On reflection he can be argued as the greatest Bond to date. For a little context I grew up with Roger Moore so he was my favourite, and then in later years I shifted towards Connery. Craig though has been mega.

This film has it all, super action, a slick look to it and a tough guy with some tools, not Inspector Gadget!

Not just one of the great Bond films but also a great action movie in its on right.

A much needed reinvigoration to the series and great to see :)
8/10
Daniel Craig is the Bond We Deserve
wisemantonofski11 February 2019
As good a reimagining as a sixties action hero could dream of, Casino Royale brings Bond into the modern world as a very grounded, very believable and very intense action thriller. The bombastic schemes for world domination at the hands of goofy villains are reborn in strict and nail-biting tension, while the suave and smooth-talking Bond who always emerges without so much as a rip in his tuxedo is reinvented as a gritty and fundamentally human character with a captivating screen presence and haunting charm.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Maker or Breaker ?
tghood1527 November 2006
I have always been a big Bond fan. Contrary to most critics Brosnan next to Connery was my favorite Bond. I just thought he had all the dimensions it took to make a good bond. After seeing Casino Royale this weekend I was left on the unfulfilled side but not sure why. Part of the problem is the plot is so layered or for lack of a better word confusing, I will have to see it again to be sure of who the bad guy actually was. I think the writers were so concerned with telling the story of how and why Bond became the cold hearted assassin that we all know and love that they lost the actual Bond vs. the villain that wants to rule the world story. I know the creators wanted to get away from the "cartoon" Bond films of the past but I for one thought they overcompensated. Where was Q ? And not one neat gadget to be seen. OK we have had our dose of serious Bond bring back fun Bond, but please no invisible cars. Thank you.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
tough S.it
valery_o8-126 December 2006
If you're totally humorless and into endless testosterone action-scenes, if you were never interested in Q's new gadgets, in futuristic gear and tongue-in-cheek charm, but always thought, that 007 should be more like a bland no-nonsense killer and if you want to see a James Bond, who himself looks like one of the dead bodies of Gunther v. Hagens strange exhibition, which is featured here - among several Sony-Ericsson Phones, the new ugly Ford and other dispensable and uninteresting products -

THEN GO SEE CASINO ROYALE AND PRAISE JEREMY CRAIG for clenching his jaws 144 long minutes.
26 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond... James Bond.
MrBiddle15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've seen the 2006 rendition of CASINO ROYALE, surprisingly since this is probably a reboot a la Batman Begins, Judi Dench from the Brosnan films reprises her role as M. She and Bond exchange the funniest of lines. Goldeneye director Martin Campbell returns in this restart of the franchise using vintage techniques of movie-making, and cinematography. The b and w noir opening was one of the best Bond openers ever. An aggressive, abridged exposition and intro into his promotion as a Double Oh.

Eva Green is sexy, smart and sly as the financer in Bond's operation. Things in their relationship take a turn for predictability towards the final act, but the film is still fun and you'll be treated to the original score was it by John Barry? - in the end credits.

Save for some uncomfortable tight shots during hand to hand combat scenes, Martin Campbell is definitely one of those directors who understand biomechanics of camera movement and framing. You'll see plenty of exquisite shots in the film.

Definitely an improvement over Brosnan's overly bombastic 007 films. Let's hope ROYALE's successors will be just as subdued and slick.
9/10
Daniel Craig is Superb
williwaw14 January 2013
Casino Royale was a Ian Flemming film produced as a spoof in the 1960's with the elegant David Niven as Star.

The new Casino Royale starring Daniel Craig is the film Ian Flemming wanted the film to be: Tough, Smashing Entertainment starring an Actor born to be James Bond, Mr. Daniel Craig.

Daniel Criag is wonderful as James Bond, and no words can fully describe the elegance, toughness, and directness that Craig brings to the screen as James Bond, the best bond Ever.

Judi Dench is priceless as "M".

Highly recommend this film as enjoyable entertainment. Bravo
6/10
Over-egged the pudding
poc-121 November 2006
This is a classic example of how more is less. There are some fantastic stunts. There are some great characters, and great lines, great cars and villains. However each one seems underused, just so that more can be fitted in. In my opinion this is a movie which would be much better with 20% less of everything including stunts, characters and plot twists. 20% shorter running time would be much better too. A bond movie is a light entertainment and should not go over 100 minutes. There are fully four scenes of card play. Now I understand the rules of Texas hold-em and I found them boring and utterly predictable. Someone who doesn't know the rules, probably 90% of the audience, would only be confused. Two or three card scenes are enough.

I like a movie with twists, as long as they are clever and delivered like a good punchline. However, the denouement here is rushed and jerky.

Lovely opening credits, but where are the scanty-clad dancing girls? I missed them.

Also there are some truly blatant product-placements. e.g.

Bond: I already brought my tux.

Bond-girl: But this is OscarDe-La-Renta!

Bond: Its tailored!

Bond-girl: I sized you up the minute I saw you

(Bond tries on tux, admires self in mirror)

Why don't they just have an ad-break it would be more honest!

It is refreshing of the directors to make a Bond movie without relying on gadgets and special effects. It is just that this pudding has too many eggs and falls flat for me. Entertaining for the opening sequence and some of the dialogue. Annoying elsewhere.
Worst Bond EVER!!!!
jasonwalters-111 January 2007
This is by far the worst Bond movie ever. There is nothing Bond about this movie. The character was Americanized and dumbed down to a level even XXX and Jet Li fans would find boring. No cheeky one liners, no sophistication, no resemblance of 007. If you enjoyed the Dalton Bond movies or you enjoy half-hour chase scenes and an endless poker game by all means have at it. If you are a Bond fan skip it, and pass on the DVD (rental or otherwise). At first, I thought the film was trying to go back in sequence and produce a legitimate Casino Royale (as the previous was a spoof), but really, no continuity, no originality, just a horrible production. He drove a Ford Escort for pity's sake. They even went so far as to bring in terrorism and 9/11. Did anyone even catch the irony of them dredging up 9/11 and airport security then had the balls to shoot the final scene with a building toppling down. I regret sitting through the entire film and hope this saves anyone else the trouble.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disjointed Bond
chris-smith-1322 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have just watched this, the latest James Bond and it's disjointed. The plot is meant to show James Bond starting out on his career as a double 0 agent! Yet it's set in the present with the odd throw back to earlier Bond films.

Daniel Craig does not look like a James Bond, he looks like a small time thug in a dinner suit, in which he also looks out of place.

Eva Green is not a Bond Girl, she looks like the girl next door. She scrubs up well but she is not a Bond Girl.

The plot is something and nothing. In previous Bond films there has been a real threat to the world. In this we have someone who acts as a banker to terrorists, who gambles with their money and looses! We have a short chase in the Aston Martin and a pipe roll, no real excitement. To much chat and not enough action, it looks as if the producers and director have lost their way.

When I watch a film I want to be drawn into the action, to be immersed, to come out at the end feeling drained.

During this offering I continually found the plot holes jarred and were very annoying, there is no hook to draw you in, to get you involved. Shoot outs, explosions, and a naff bit of CG of a building falling down do not make a good Bond film.
8/10
Deeper story and strong acting make this one of the best Bond's yet
JacobsReviews17 June 2020
If you're unfamiliar to James Bond, most of the Bond movies are marked by sexy women, fast cars, improbable action scenes, and incompetent villains. 'Casino Royale' contains bits of all of that but goes above and beyond creating an emotional connection to the movie through strong acting by Daniel Craig, a Bond girl you actually care about, and a plot that makes sense.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Daniel Craig Assumes the Position
wes-connors24 December 2010
When negotiations failed to produce Pierce Brosnan, after his fourth appearance as James Bond in "Die Another Day" (2002), the franchise owners decided upon a new approach. So, while the title "Casino Royale" suggests familiar ground, it is quite different than what has gone before. There is still a lot of action, but it's more "realistic" and less gimmickry; gone too is the famed cache of Bond gadgets. The new actor signed to play Bond, rugged blond Daniel Craig, is more bone-crunching than dashing. When asked if he'd like his martini shaken or stirred, Mr. Craig answers, "Do I look like I give a damn?" Well, no...

All if this is claimed, with the filmmakers' blessing, to be a return to creator Ian Fleming's original intent for the character.

Fine, but without the forty year-plus tradition of gadgets and gimmickry, this Bond seems more ordinary than original. And, the character lacks his predecessors suave appeal; he's more of a traditional action hero, and humorless. The bosomy "Bond girl" is Eva Green (as Vesper Lynd), who revealed all of herself in "The Dreamers" (2003); she's sexy with her clothes on, but these films should, by now, be showing at least as much as an old "Playboy" magazine. Scar-faced Mads Mikkelsen (as Le Chiffre) leads a pack of perfect villains. A change was needed for the Bond series, but with more of the distinctive style intact.

***** Casino Royale (11/14/06) Martin Campbell ~ Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench
10/10
The Classic Bond, But Much Better
KristenM9019 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, kiddies, listen up, because I hardly ever give movies perfect scores. This movie is perhaps the best 007 movie ever. Daniel Craig puts all the other Bonds to shame, with the perfect mixture of sex appeal, good acting, and let's just face it, he looks damn good holding a gun! This installment's Bond girl, Eva Green, does a great job. The villain, Mads Mikkelsen, definitely played his role properly. There is a particularly good scene, with Bond frantically trying to save himself after being poisoned via martini. It teaches you that if you ever are playing a high stakes poker game, and someone put poison in your drink, all you have to do is dump a whole salt shaker in a glass of water, throw up, and find yourself a defibrillator and a handy syringe of antidote. The opening scene and sequence completely blew me away. The classic "Bond Song" was paired with a great sequence of silhouettes and playing cards. This movie is definitely the best action movie I have ever seen.
9/10
Return of the 00
averymor19 November 2006
I just saw Casino Royal last night with my hard core movie crew, and we don't let anything slide. We should have our own movie review show (Sneakin In The Movies! Ha!) Anyway, we all agree. This was the best of the franchise. I was hard pressed to find one that even came close. Although for some reason not a Bond favorite by many, OHMSS to me was one of the best. Casino easily out does this.

The other thing we agreed on is that this had to be the worst Bond song ever done (opening credits) but it ends there.

While Pierce Brosnan had become my favorite Bond, Daniel Craig has knocked him out the box completely.

Trust me, if you're reading our reviews here and haven't seen it, then don't read any further.

GO SEE THIS!! NOW!!! Not only was it a thoroughly entertaining Bond experience, but the ending and his last line is worth waiting for alone.

Now, let's hope that the suits in Hollywood don't stick their fingers in the next few and "blankety-blank" it all up.

Let's keep it 00 status!
10/10
Best Bond?
redanman23 November 2006
Played completely straight, pulling even the punning, this Bond is as satisfying as a a meal in your favorite Parisian restaurant, a great steak, the freshest sushi - choose your simile.

Daniel Craig kept reminding me of a strange but satisfying combo of Sting and Steve McQueen; that devilish smile in his eyes and that killer ready to go on a moment's notice. Compared to the abysmally horrid Roger Moore tired farces of the 1970's we have another apex to contrast to the abyss.

This will go down as either the best or the best of the rest depending on your loyalty to Sir Sean Connery. (I haven't decided yet.) This is a very satisfying escapist movie-making blockbuster. Something Bond fans have waited decades for.

Some will not care for it because the genre does not appeal to all types, but few with interest in spectacular and varied settings, action escapism and fantasizing "the stories behind the news" will have two hours of first-class "as you ordered".

Isn't that what we go to the movies for anyway?

Does it look like I give a damn? I'm going again. Soon.

Cheers. I'm a happy mate with this one.
9/10
Great film, great acting - especially from the lead...
ir0n_jaw22 November 2006
I wasn't in either camp when it came to loving or hating their choice for the next Bond. I liked Daniel Craig's performances in other films such as Layer Cake, but I was a little surprised when he was chosen for Bond. Not that I didn't think he'd make a fine 007, just that he doesn't fit the usual mould. But that's just it - this film doesn't fit the usual 007 mould.

Gone are the camp one-liners, the easily escapable death-situations and the dodgy gadgets. Instead this film is brutal, honest and above all human. Craig it completely convincing as Bond, and I tell you what - if the character were real, you wouldn't want this Bond on your tale. He's fearless, daring, charismatic and very very deadly.

Fine acting (most notably on the parts of Bond, Vesper and Le Shiffre), quality script and fantastic directing make this my favourite Bond film of all time. Too early to say that I hear? No way - this is how it should be.

10/10
9/10
Easily the best James bond movie around
Jsimpson511 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Last night I had the pleasure of watching this film for the first time. I must say that I was curious for a long time on how this movie would turn out, being that a blond actor was playing James Bond. I can say that once the film started, that feeling went away, I and knew that Daniel Craig was the real deal.

The script, the expressions, and the fight scenes were in a sense awesome in it's purest form. I'm pretty sure if you would look awesome up in a dictionary, you would find this movie in there. James Bond seems more bad ass which is a change from his usual self but it makes the character seem more human, as he is not always a suave type character.

I do have one major issue with the movie, and that is the time setting that this movie takes place in. While this movie is to be able James Bond's first assignment as a 00 agent, I think setting the film in the present, really takes away from it. Considering that the first James Bond film was made in 1962 I felt that this film should have taken place in the late 50's early 60's instead of the present. It would like having the film Gettysburg set in the year 2000 instead of the 1800s.

Other than the small problem that I have, I found this film to be a delight every minute of the way. If you have not seen it and are a James Bond fan, I STRONGLY recommend that you see this film, you will not be disappointed.
8/10
A great rebirth of 007-------8/10
Sfpsycho41523 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"What? A blond guy playing James Bond? Time to riot!"

This was the sort of sentiment that was commonplace when Daniel Craig was announced as the next generation James Bond. At the time i didn't think he fit the mold for 007, either. I must say i stand corrected and glad about it. He did a great job because of one thing: I believed him as James Bond. Now they could have gotten any white, black haired actor with an English accent to play Bond and he may or may not have worked out. But Craig made you believe he was Bond. Thats really all i wanted. Now bring on the action!

The backbone of any great 007 movie is the action sequences. Even the action from the Connery days still hold up well (check out the underwater battle in Thunderball). Casino Royale is no exception. It's got an explosive chase at Miami Airport and great fight scenes in Monte Carlo and pretty much everywhere Bond goes. But the standout scene is a heart-stopping on-foot chase between Bond and a bomb maker played by free runner Sebastien Foucan, who puts on one of the most agile and athletic action performances since Ray Park in The Phantom Menace. He bounces off walls and jumps from huge cranes and always lands on his feet. This is one of the coolest action scenes ever. Period. And also watch for the most cringe-worthy torture scene i have ever seen. There's no gore or anything but you will feel this man's pain.

Another staple of Bond flicks are the beautiful women. This on has more than enough with Eva Green's excellent performance as Bond's match Vesper Lynd, and the stunning Caterina Murino as the obligatory bad guy's wife, Solange. And of course Bond gets to bed them both.

Now as much I enjoyed Casino Royale, it did have a few setbacks. The bad guy, Le Chiffre (played perfectly by Mads Mikkelsen), is a great villain but i thought his exit was sudden and unsatisfactory. And after that, the movie doesn't really have a climax. The whole third act actually suffers from not having a definitive bad guy and gets a bit predictable. However, a lot of people complained that the poker scenes take too much time. I found them to be exciting, fun, and very well done.

At any rate, i am glad to say that Casino Royale is a great rebirth of 007. He is the classic Bond, but a little rough around the edges, more ruthless, and more vulnerable, which i think will make for a great new series of 007 films. Welcome back, Mr. Bond. 8/10
9/10
"Royale" is the most thrilling Bond adventure in the past decade
MasterDebator530 November 2008
Casino Royale

Directed by Martin Campbell.

Starring Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Judi Dench.

After a four year hiatus, newcomer Daniel Craig reinvents James Bond in "Casino Royale." Directed by Martin Campbell (who also launched Pierce Brosnan's Bond in 1995's "GoldenEye"), "Royale" reboots England's sophisticated super-spy by bringing him back to basics. Campbell steers clear of the excesses often associated with the franchise -- ditching the gadgets and avoiding the puns -- to create the most thrilling Bond adventure in the past decade.

The film's opening sequence sees Bond attaining his double-oh status by making his first two assigned kills; one while engaged in an intense bathroom brawl, and the other during a calm encounter in an expensive London flat. The scenes show the audience Bond's calm, collected exterior as well as the animosity the lies underneath. Craig establishes early on that his Bond will be a rougher creature, less like the camp-filled shenanigans of Roger Moore and more like the dark, brooding Timothy Dalton. It's a risky decision, considering Dalton's short tenure as 007, but it winds up paying off in "Royale."

After the initial set-up, the plot meanders for an hour or so, and Campbell rounds out the film with some impressive filler. Bond's exhilarating foot chase after terrorist Mollaka (played by Parkour pioneer Sébastien Foucan) is one of the most inventive in the series' history. Other scenes, like 007's attempt to thwart the destruction of an expensive new commercial airliner, are just as exciting.

The story really begins when Bond is assigned to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world's terrorists who has carelessly lost his clients' money. In an effort to win back the fortune -- and avoid the repercussions -- he sets up a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro. MI6 reluctantly enters Bond in the game (as luck would have it, he's a gifted player) to prevent Le Chiffre from winning, hoping to gain information from him in return for protection once he has lost. Along for the ride is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), representing the treasury and making sure (unsuccessfully) that things don't get out of hand. It's not long before Bond develops an attachment to her, jeopardizing his career and even his own safety.

There is an underlying sincerity in Craig's Bond that has not been seen since 1969's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." When he falls in love with Vesper, it is convincing and feels completely genuine. When he is unable to best Le Chiffre, he loses his cool and panics. The human touches work well because they prove that James Bond is fallible, even if only for those brief moments.

The charm and stylishness of "Casino Royale" cannot be denied, and neither can Craig's impact as 007. The film reminds action fans that, while there are many imitators, James Bond is still at the head of the pack.

Final Grade: A
1/10
No spark
MrDeWinters15 October 2021
No spark, no flow, no fun. No gadgets. Too long. Awful credits and terrible Bond song. Daniel is missing the suave element making him interchangeable.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Had a hard time sitting through the whole thing
davesawesomeinbox27 December 2019
I haven't seen many of the old ones. Maybe two or three of the others. Don't remember caring much for them. This Casino Royale one, and then the next one that came out though...I really couldn't get into them. Sighs. You know when you really want to like a movie, and so many people have gotten on the bandwagon of proclaiming that the movie is awesome....but you just find it boring or disappointing?

I never bothered to watch it a second time, and it must've been at least five years since I saw Casino Royale. So I can't recall any specifics. I just remember having wanted to enjoy it, but finding just a boring action-fest. Don't get me wrong; I like action movies. I liked MI: Ghost Protocol. I liked most of the Bourne movies. I have also liked most of the super hero movies of the last decade. I will try to watch the next Bond movie that comes out, but I won't have any high expectations about it. I'll expect boredom and I'll have a small bit of hope that it will actually have elements to it that bring some emotion to me. Be it smiles or worries, laughs or tears...I don't watch movies to think "that was well choreographed" or to admire technicalities...I watch movies to feel.
4/10
Isn't James Bond
woodygreen1 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've been watching Bond for years, I understand this was a new situation, but then again this is a new post for me.

This is nothing like I've seen from Bond, I watched it, will watch it again, since this is the only Bond in existence today.

If it is the same style, that is I think Francis Ford Dicopula / Quenton Tarantino theme, you have lost a Bond fan.

Trying something new with people expecting some what of the same, Does't work, and I will think twice before spending my money again. should I go on.

Have a Good Day.

Woody
7/10
Best craig bond movie
allanmichael3022 December 2019
This was the best film featuring craig and after not watching it for 14 years it still looks better than any of his other films. At the time i was disappointed that Daniel didn't play a bad guy in bond instead on being bond
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The name's Bond. James Bond.
VincentBauer7 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Don't judge a book by it's cover. A famous saying that I think makes it point here. From all the "Bond Fans" who had not yet seen Daniel Craig act had been calling him a mistake. I myself, a fan of the novels and the series used to think so until I saw Layer Cake. His movements and acting were all like Sean Connery. And I think we can expect more from Mr. Craig.

The film starts off with Bond's first two kills. It is probably the best shot, and best written beginning of a Bond film. As well as the best opening titles. Afterwords we view the beginning of the story. In it we learn of the beginning of SPECTRE with LeChiffre as the banker who is in charge of all the money the organization receives and pays for devices and sells them. Bond intervenes and tries to stop all of this by winning a poker tournament at the Casino Royale, where LeChiffre will be playing to get more money by using the SPECTRE account. (Of course there's more to the story. With the help of the beautiful Vesper Lynd he tries to stop Lechiffre from having government financed terrorism.

All elements of a great Bond film are in this movie, and all the actors are good. We get explanations for all of Bond's trademarks and we see some good action as well. The acting is superb as well as the directing. Daniel Craig is the closest thing to Bond that I have seen since I read the novels.

Casino Royale 10/10
4/10
Not a James Bond Movie
Pike627 November 2006
I was really disappointed with Casino Royale and it's not only because of Daniel Craig. I didn't find the British humor that was in each and every James Bond movie rather a lot of violence and most of the time useless. When you think about James Bond, you think about Sean Connery, Roger Moore ,even Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan and their British touch. Here it is just brutal action and nothing more. Yes Daniel Craig is athletic and shows lots of muscles but that's not what I expect from James Bond. In its behavior he's very impulsive and does not think before acting which puts him is perilous situations you would'not expect a real James Bond to fall into. In this movie you will not even see a Q anymore. Dear, I miss this one too. You will also see James Bond driving a Ford car and nobody is fooled anymore. Ford has paid a lot of good dollars for this minute of the movie. There's also a scene where James makes himself a shot of medicine in his carotid without a miss and uses a portable defibrillator at the same time. this is just too much. So, my advise if you liked the James Bond movies the way I liked them,you'd better not go and watch this one.
9/10
007 is back and better than ever.
JCRendle17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
31 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale (12A) James Rendle When Daniel Craig, 39, was cast as the British icon James Bond in October last year people acted as if Craig was a national enemy - hate campaigns, websites and press rumours all seemed to point to a terrible casting mistake, had EON productions finally flipped? Thankfully the answer is no, the casting of Craig, who starred in Layer Cake and Steven Spielberg's Munich, was an inspired choice and a great way to turn around a rusty, yet still successful, franchise. After 2002's disappointing Die Another Day, which relied heavily on GCI and over the top gadgets as well as an ageing Pierce Brosnan, many Bond fans wondered where the series would go next - would they carry on in the same vein or would they do something drastic? This has been answered with the release of the 21st Bond film "Casino Royale", based on Ian Fleming's 1953 novel of the same name, which introduces the British secret service agent to the world. In keeping with Fleming's novel, which showed Bond early in his career, the producers have used the opportunity to completely overhaul the series and show Bond's first mission as a 00 agent, though set firmly in 2006.

Daniel Craig is great as Bond, showing a masculinity and strength that Brosnan often lacked, the coolness of Sean Connery and realism of Timothy Dalton. Those looking for the camp humour favoured by Roger Moore may be a little disappointed, but don't take this as meaning the film is completely humourless.

Gone are the cheesy sexual innuendos, being replaced with witty comebacks and clever puns (For example, after Bond barely escapes with his life during a break in Tenez Les Cartes, he returns to the table to a shocked look from the films antagonist Le Chiffre, with a smile he quips "I'm sorry, that last hand... nearly killed me.") The action set pieces are perfect, gone is overused CGI - everything you see here is real, from a free running parkour terrorist (Sebastien Foucan who plays bomb maker Mallaka) to a car chase that set a new world record in car flips.

The casting for the film is inspired, with perfect performances all round - though special note has to go to Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, who makes Le Chiffre the best Bond villain for a long while (and no, he is not planning to take over the world), it is easy to forget that this is only Mikkelsen's second English language film.

The direction (From a returning Martin Cambell - GoldenEye) is handled stylishly, with remembrance and style of the Bond films of the 60s as well as a film-noir Pre-Title Sequence, shot in black and white.

Look out for the 1964 Aston Marin DB5, find out how Bond's Martini's are really made (watch out, they're strong) and pick out the winks to the Bond's of old.

James Bond is back.

Warning: Some scenes may be unsuitable for younger audiences, especially one scene that involves torture.
8/10
He's a Cop
rmgentile3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I enjoyed watching Daniel Craig as James Bond. He has a simian quality the others haven't, except perhaps Connery a bit. When he sat down at the poker table with the other international high-rollers, in comparison to them he just screamed "cop." The short hair, the buff almost military appearance, ape like bearing. This Bond has some privilege but he doesn't have to cover up with the airs of a gentleman. His manners are dictated by common sense more than breeding or a concern for appearances. I also like his almost robotic nature when he's behind the scenes doing his job, crashing the cars, sneaking into the hotel's security office, always 5 steps ahead of us. Sometimes Craig seems a little over-botoxed with the lack of facial expressions, but his fanny did look really cute in those blue linen pants.
3/10
Bond? I don't think so!
jomo692322 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reading through some of these reviews, I am generally astounded at the praise being lavished on Casino Royale.

Allow me to tell it like it is.

This was not a 'Bond' film - far from it. I realise that with the new 'blonde Bond' that is Daniel Craig, the film makers had hope to revitalise the franchise. What they produced was an embarrassing detraction away from what has been a proved formula, spanning decades.

Where to start? OK, I say Bond...you say?

MoneyPenny? - Nope, she was omitted from this one - no reason given, let's just cut one of the characters who has for years been an amusing addition to James Bond's visits to go and see M.

Q? - No, he's been cut too. And of course that means we cut out all the gadgets, gizmos and quaint little puns which go hand in hand with a visit to Q's workshop.

Cool cars? - Not really, Bond spends most of his time in a Ford Focus in this one and when he eventually does get his hands on the Vanquish he flips it about three minutes after taking it for a spin; needless to say the crash scene was laughable.

Sexy girls? - Well, there was one but she was no Ursula Andress. And the one Bond eventually falls for is not only a 'plain Jane' but she's pretty boring; remember the good olde days of Christmas Jones?

Funky music? - Ehh, how about a terrible score and an overrated theme.

OK but what about James Bond himself - surely he was as suave, sophisticated, full of one-liners and crazy weapons womanizing himself through another great action movie?

No. Not even slightly. Daniel Craig was a terrible Bond. His acting is as wooden as Pinnocchio's nose. His build is more like that of a Terminator than a secret agent - yet this doesn't stop him free-running up girders and scaffolding in what must be about the most pathetic opening sequence ever considered for James Bond. Craig also cannot pull off any of the Bondisms we are familiar with - his wit was non existent, one-liners were kept to a minimum (and even then his delivery of them was representative of a broken auto-cue). Suave and sophisticated? More like a bull in a China shop! It wasn't so much Bond sneaking around and being the tactical espionage agent we are used to, more an over-sized suited monkey blowing everything up and yet still avoiding getting shot.

The worst thing about this film though, which personally drove me to pulling my hair out was...the shameful product placement. Omega, Ford, Sony (Ericsson) - the film was littered with embarrassing camera shots which were just big enough to squeeze in some brand writing. The scene on the train where Bond claims his watch is an Omega, not a Rolex surely takes the biscuit.

To be honest I'm only really scratching the surface here - there are a million more things 'wrong' with this movie but I'm sure anyone who sees this movie will pick them out for him/her self.

Bond is dead. RIP
Great, but not a true Bond movie.
S-t-a-t-i-x3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This James Bond is without a doubt one of the best. The action scenes spectacular and Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond. But the traditional James Bond things, like the "Bond, James Bond", the one liners and perhaps the most important ones: the gadgets and Q, are gone. I think these things make the Bond movies the way they are.

Bond shows more emotions and gets hurt pretty bad an awful lot of times. Which is a good thing. He seems more human and you're able understand what he's going through.

The makers of the film said that the traditional James Bond stuff is not something that belongs to the present. It may or may not belong to the present, it is still an important part of every James Bond movie, which makes the movies what they are.

If I look at everything besides the traditional Bond things, this is without a doubt the best Bond movie; but if I include the traditional Bond things, than i have to say, with some regret, that this isn't a true James Bond.
1/10
Worst Bond Film yet
adavies-219 November 2006
What a load of Rubbish. This is not Bond but some mediocre spy story. Bond has always been a family film. No impossible action sequences, No gadgets, No Megalomaniac villain. Too brutal, too much poker playing, too much looking into her eye's and far too long. Bad title sequence, bad music and boring. The only thing to save this is Craig. If they can bring back some of what Bond is about, they can still save it. If not we will have a spy series ala 24 with some guy called Bond in it. As an aside to show how it lost the audience, nobody complained about the "wags at the front" and their outspoken witticisms and most people coming out were being disparaging. One for the hardcore Bond fans only I'm afraid.
15 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"Now the whole world's gonna know that you died scratching my balls!"
marshallonfilm_19 March 2020
Bond is brash, blonde, & BACK! Stripping down to its bare essentials brought this series into the 21st century, where a cocktail recipe of amazing performances, solid writing, expert editing & skilled direction make this a must-see for any action film fan. "I cannot wait to watch the sequel!"

9/10 lashes to the balls.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond gets a new face. And a good one!
DoctorKay24 November 2006
I never liked Bond. Too much stereotype, too much cliché-based. And the last two films definitely blow. I mean, come on, an invisible Aston Martin, what garbage. The last Bond movies were one visual effect. Louder, faster, dumber. And I wasn't sure if the new one could do any better. I saw it two days ago. It could. Hardly any visual effects, but more solid action and suspense. Great! And Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond. A little more rough and dirty than the last ones, but always with a little humor. He always seems a sympathetic character, in contrast to Brosnan, who was an arrogant and one-dimensional character all the time. The new Bond is three-dimensional, he goes through a journey and changes within it. He is a man, not a hero. As I said, the film strictly avoids clichés, the gangsters are no Nazis, no Muslims, no evil Russians. They don't want to destroy the world, they don't have any superpower weapons. They are criminals, only with a bit more money.... The film is perfectly set and played, director Campbell did a great job as well. Amazing scenes, like the very first chase in Africa, which is breathtaking, great camera movement, superb actors, the film is by far the best Bond I've ever seen! There was only one thing, I didn't like: After about one minute of driving, Bond crashes his Aston Martin DB-S. Amazing scene, but that nice car..... *cry*

P.S.: Sorry for the leaking vocab, I'm from Germany.
9/10
Ian Flemming's actual Bond...
cordaro941810 September 2008
From Connery to Brosnan, there has been one constant; They didn't look like the written Bond. 007 was never intended a pretty boy handsome spy, but on film he translated to it.

Enter Daniel Craig: I'm not saying he's not a handsome man, but he is closer to the more realistic Bond Flemming wrote 50 years ago. His gritty and not so smooth features are closer to the Hoagy 'Stardust' Carmichael the face was based upon. Add in the original Bond novel, and yes, we have a movie.

Now, most of the Bonds reach near epic proportion, more than just a popcorn movie often does... this follows those footsteps. Exotic locations, little gadgetry and more roughhouse, this follows the ideals of 'Dr. No' and 'From Russia...' than let's say 'Die Another Day'.

Yes, Judy Dench as M throws the time-line way out of whack for actual Bond-o-philes, but even the producers admitted they couldn't recast the role any better, so tough.

Craig enters the role at just the right time, a little known face in the U.S., with several international roles, he is definitely fresh and hits home with the brooding and broken Bond, who we've seen glimpses of in established Bonds before him.

Is he the best 007? Far too soon to tell. But he's off to one damn fine start.
boring
inge-223 January 2007
I must be getting too old for James Bond. (60) I was certainly not impressed with the film. I found the action veeeery boring, and I was very much disappointed with the new Bond. I could'nt understand a word he was saying! He just mumbled with that pouty little mouth of his! I'm danish - but I'm used to watching films in their original language without text. Dame Judy gave me no problems whatsoever. It makes me proud though, that the danish actor Mads Mikkelsen did a very good job and was the only memorable character in the movie! And where was the hum? A good James Bond movie must have hum. Action films you can get anywhere - but a James Bond film is supposed to be something special.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very undistinguished film,
misho400024 November 2006
Very undistinguished film. Not in the James Bond style. Bond's high-tech gadgets are missing. And the actor – in the first 30 minutes of the film everyone asks "Is this man James Bond". Also the moments in the casino are so boring and so much alike to "Maverick". So if you want to watch a movie like the previous 007 films this is not the right choice! You will be disappointed! But if you are just curious you can watch it, but you have to be ready to see some unrealistic acrobatics and half an hour of playing cards. An the gadgets of James Bond, if you have a SonyEricsson mobile phone then you have them all. Also the women for the new one are complete failure.
23 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Awesome ......
rockyunderscore29 November 2006
Let me just say one thing about this movie : AWESOME !!! I mean I cant get this movie out of my head.It's just so damn good. I've never seen such a great Bond Film since From Russia With Love. Daniel Craig really did a great job. He surpassed Sean Connery and even Pierce Brosnan. At first I thought the only thing that's gonna blow me away in this movie is the action sequences. NO . I was so wrong . Im more glue to the character than the action. I mean whats not to like about Bond . This time James Bond is more SMARTASS than ever . He got that macho thing that many people liked to see.

Smart screenplay,with many memorable scenes,good plot but not too good and of course the action sequences. Characters are very interesting.

8.5/10 Recommended for all Bond fans.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
My Favourite James Bond Film
frosty-4443111 February 2021
I haven't watched many James Bond films and I believe this was the first one I watched fully. So for me Daniel Craig is going to be the best Bond.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
R.I.P. James Bond Franchise (1962-2006).
TheHonestCritic19 September 2019
"Casino Royale" (2006), this was a sad year for the James Bond franchise. This "movie" was only the start of the James Bond series downfall. The downfall is all due to the miscasting of Daniel Craig as James Bond. What were they thinking?! This could have maybe been a somewhat decent movie if they had cast a proper actor to play James Bond. In this case, his new catchphrase is: "the name is Blond, James Blond." But I'm getting ahead of myself, let's just get to my review. Had someone else played James Bond, this "movie" would have had some relevance of entertainment. The story is a bit convoluted, the acting is all over the place, and the sets/locations are boring. I almost fell asleep numerous times when I first saw this "movie". The only good scenes I can salvage from this "movie" are some of the fight scenes, the torture scene (I KNOW IT'S NOT REAL, BUT I JUST LOVED SEEING THIS JAMES BOND WANNABE GETTING TORTURED!). Also, the opening foot chase is one of the top 10 best on-foot chases in the history of cinema. The only way I can possibly view any of Daniel Craig's "James Bond films" is to pretend I'm watching something else! If that's the case, then you know something is wrong. The only other good things in this "film" are the special effects and the soundtrack. This "movie" is a pile of garbage, along with the other Daniel Craig "Bond films"! I rate this "film" 2 out of 5 stars on my scale, which equates to 4 out of 10 IMDB stars. This "movie" is a disgrace to the James Bond franchise, but thankfully it's a reboot. Since it's a reboot, it's not part of the real James Bond franchise, this "film", along with the other Daniel Craig "movies", belong with the other two piles of filth; the old "Casino Royale" (1967), and "Never Say Never Again" (1983)! Just stick with any other Bond movie besides the Daniel Craig "films", you'll be much better off watching the real Bond movies instead.
The First James Bond
Chrysanthepop18 September 2007
This is arguably the best interpretation of the James Bond character and here we see a more humane side rather than the stone hearted killer. Of course, this is based on Fleming's first novel, 'Casino Royale' and we see a somewhat different James Bond who falls in love, who's actually vulnerable and who's even scared at times. Daniel Craig, at first seems a little awkward, but quickly fits into Bond. His awkwardness works in favour of the character, who's quite new himself to the MI 6. He's a cold blooded killer and a hot headed protector. The beautiful and charismatic Eva Green's Vesper is different from other bond babes such that she is NOT the damsel in distress, nor the cold-hearted seductress. She too is a vulnerable character who actually does resist Bond's charm. Judi Dench's irritated M is quite funny and is a strong presence.

The film is brilliant, like any other good Bond film. Mind blowing action, starting from the edge-of-your-seat chase scene in Madagascar, to the exotic locales in the Bahamas, superb high-tech gadgets (which are somewhat more realistic than what has been witnessed in other Bond films), exquisite style, an interesting villain with blood tear, beautiful women, a fine score and a fast-paced screenplay.

Definitely both a visual treat and great entertainment for Action movie and Bond fans.
8/10
Very Good
rabeaaron13 February 2022
Plot: 9/10 Acting: 8/10 Cinematography: 5.6/7 Score: 4/5 Enjoyable: 1/1 = 84/100

Favorite Character: James Bond (Daniel Craig) Favorite Scene: Earning "00" status Favorite Quote: "The names Bond...James Bond." - James Bond.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Best of the Bond Films!
MichaelMargetis18 November 2007
Vesper Lynd: It doesn't bother you? Killing all those people?

James Bond: Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.

One of the most anticipated or may I just say the most anticipated film of 2006 period, was the new Bond film 'Casino Royale', a remake of the first of the Ian Fleming 007 novels that promised to re-invent the series. Being the skeptic I am, I initially thought 'Casino Royale' was going to turn out to be another Superman Returns, a film so many people had such high hopes for, but ended up letting them down tremendously. After hearing such positive reviews of 'Casino Royale' and discovering it's remarkable 94% positive reviews on rottentomatoes.com, I became very excited to see the film and find out if it was as good as it's word of mouth. To my surprise, 'Casino Royale' didn't disappoint me at all, in fact it surpassed my already high expectations. Although it's not an excellent piece of film-making, 'Casino Royale' succeeds with flying colors in bringing life to a tired, clichéd and worn-out action series again.

From it's opening brutal black and white sequence in which our protagonist, Bond, James Bond, played expertly by Brit Daniel Craig, kills two people in order to achieve his double 0 status, we know there's something different about this Bond film. Instead of the fun and over-the-top campiness of the previous films, this is actually some gritty and cool stuff. It only gets more different when the opening title sequence doesn't feature the steamy sexual shadows of naked women of the previous 20 films, but instead it features silhouettes of Bond himself (fully-clothed, I should make clear) gracefully shooting his firearm at nothing in particular while playing card suits (clubs, diamonds, hearts, spades) fizzle in the background. Then, it hits us, we aren't watching the same Bond movies we've been made to sit through for the last forty years, when the film delves into the character of James Bond -- he's not the eloquent, prudish and clean Bond we've seen portrayed by Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore or even Sean Connery -- he's a tough, built, ruthless guy who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty and talks with a mouth full of food in one particular scene. But most importantly, he isn't the flawless super being like in the previous Bond films -- he has his flaws and he makes his mistakes because the guy is only human. In other words, there is a new bond in town and he's one bad ass motherf**ker!

The plot here doesn't steer that far away from Ian Fleming's heralded novel, or so I've heard. The only real significant difference, I guess, is the leap from the 1960s to the present, 2006. Most bond films surround a ridiculous evil mad man trying to destroy or take over the world, but in this the villain is simple and relevant for the times we live in -- some obnoxious French asshole who is helping fund terrorists. For his first mission, Bond is assigned by his boss M (Dame Judi Dench) to stop the bastard by beating him in a casino poker tournament. From there, I won't tell you anything more, just that the film features great action sequences but is not overflowing with them. For the most part it's leisurely paced compared to the other Bond films, which is not a insult in the slightest bit. The film sometimes drag a bit, but I'd rather have that than constant non-stop action with no room for character or plot development. The screenplay is much superior to any of the Bond films and all other action films this year also. It has a few flaws, but for the most part it flows smooth and creates an ultra-cool atmosphere. Martin Campbell's direction is merit-able, as is the film's beautiful cinematography.

The acting is also something to take note of as well. Every James Bond film before this was lacking in the acting department, but not 'Casino Royale'. Daniel Craig lunges onto the screen with his vibrant, engrossing and completely unique portrayal of James Bond, a very intelligent but in turn a very arrogant M16 field agent. Although he may not be deserving an Oscar nomination, what Craig does here is brilliant and courageous, he takes a beloved and cherished cinematic hero and does a complete 180 on his personality. This could have horribly back-fired on Craig, but instead it worked miraculously. Eva Green also is great as what I might consider the best 'Bond Babe' of all time. She's not a ditzy floozy or self-absorbed bitch, but a smart and cute little firecracker with her share of problems. She's more than one-dimensional, not to mention extraordinarily attractive (especially when she's out of makeup), which is a must for a 'Bond Babe'. The rest of the cast is solid but not as noticeable. The villains are all good enough and Mads Mikkelsen is convincing enough as the cowardly French villain, Le Chiffre. Judi Dench, Giancarlo Gianni and Angels in America's Jeffrey Wright are all excellent as always but it's unfortunate they have such small and meaningless roles.

All in all, 'Casino Royale' is well worth your time if your time if you like action/thrillers and absolutely essential if you like Bond films. Great acting, solid directing, incredible action sequences, a gut-wrenching torture scene that will have guys in cold sweat and an intense poker showdown that will make you sweat bullets and that crazy French villain cry tears of blood (yuck, that was pretty disgusting!) make this one of the best remakes in recent years. This ain't your daddy's generational Bond movie, it's a powerhouse revival for the year 2006 that kicks the old films square in the balls. Grade: B+ (review written 11/19/06)
3/10
Good acting, poor writing... NOT A BOND FILM!
maxwell-funk25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bottom Line Up Front: This was the worst "Bond" film since "On Her Majestie's Secret Service" (which was not technically a Bond film anyway).

First off, Craig did do a great job performing as Bond; however, I was not satisfied by the movie itself. There was no Q involvement, no quirky one-liners, few gadgets (aside from the Ericson advertisement), a villain with no other objective than to make money to invest in international terrorism, and to top it off Bond got captured (leading to a scene with him getting justifiably hit in the jewels) were he had to be rescued by a loan shark; he could not even save himself. In addition, the movie kept on going and going. There were several times where it could have just ended and we could have called it a day, but it didn't, it just got more painful.

The lowest point in the movie were the poker scenes. In my opinion this is just the producer's way of taking advantage of the recent popularity of Texas hold 'em poker. I could have stayed home and watched ESPN 2 and TBS's Bond-A-Thon, saved $9 and have been much more satisfied.
6/10
Preparing for No Time To Die
michaelxqh1 February 2021
Starting point of a new era of spy movies. Great performances (especially Eva Green she's amazing), intense plots and a really complete work, giving the audience a general overview of who James Bond is. The story near the end is a little inconsistence, and action scenes aren't that gentle as I expected. But I'll continue watching Daniel Craig's 007 series as preparation to the coming end.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Daniel Craig pulls off Bond
MLDinTN8 April 2008
This was a very entertaining movie and one of the better Bond films. I liked how in this version there aren't a lot of ridiculous Bond killing villain scenes. They are more realistic and the villain isn't some crazy scientist wanting to rule the world. Craig is great as bond. He's hot and sold the character well. Bond goes to the Bahamas and tracks a man supplying funds to terrorists to a very high stakes poker tournament in Europe. Eva Green is the hot bond girl and does OK. She looked a little too young for Craig in my opinion. There's even a surprise twist at the end.

And the torture scene, one word "Yikes!"

FINAL VERDICT: One of the better films of the year. Entertaining and worth seeing.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not 007
trahkrub6 June 2009
I'm sorry, I have to personally disagree with all the people who gave a high rating for this movie, but Daniel Craig is just not James Bond. The story is somewhat exciting & interesting but Daniel Craig just does not fit the character of Agent 007. I have seen every James Bond movie, most several times. Several friends of mine, also James Bond fans, are in complete agreement with me. If Mr. Craig makes another movie titled "George Stock: Agent 000002" it might be interesting but I seriously doubt I would be inclined to watch it. James Bond has always been somewhat of a light hearted, happy-go-lucky and romantic individual with a bit of humor thrown in with the seriousness of his adventure but I find this totally lacking in in Mr. Craig,s portrayal of James Bond. Daniel Craig would be perfect as a foreign agent whom a real James Bond would bring down.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best bond ever
Steim-127 November 2006
If you grew up reading Ian Fleming's books, I suspect you will love this movie. If, however, James Bond means nothing more to you than a cinematic event, you may be disappointed--but then again, maybe not. This movie has the best chase scene I have ever viewed. The new James Bond is less showy, in my opinion, and far more dangerous. He does not rely on gadgets to save the day. His hands and his lightning quick decision-making skills make him a powerful adversary. He is all too human, while proving once and for all that he his king of the super spies. And then of course there are the bond girls, who likewise are better--I'm not talking about actresses, but the characters themselves--than previous bond girls, in my opinion. I loved this movie.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This is the real Englishman I would expect to see as Bond
terryhall229 November 2006
Daniel Craig..I salute you. The hard-nut style works perfectly as Bond (whom I've always seen as a sophisticated SAS-type, comfortable in his skin for the work he has to do, intelligent and culturally well-travelled). Pierce Brosnan never filled that role for me, he was too well-coiffed and perfumed.

Daniel Craig looks like he will rip your head off if necessary, and yet look entirely at home in the Casino - because this sort of risk-taker would be! And a true Blond Englishman to boot - that's a real Englishman in my book.

With his piercing, steely blue eyes, rugged, streetwise attitude and rugby-player build, he entirely took over the role of a credible Bond. I would want this sort of man protecting my Government interests. And his sexy transformation in the sophistication of his dress suit worked perfectly. Yet, underneath the hard exterior, their emanates a complex emotional person and Daniel portrayed this perfectly, too. He looked like he was hurt and beaten...human, not super hero.

The film chases round the world as usual - yes, maybe for the sake of just the pretty locations, but it did make us feel like spies ourselves.

I thought the quick recovery from a poison was a bit of a stretch and I didn't like the Venice scenes of a Palazzo collapsing (how did the British Government get out of that one?) but for sheer spectacle the crane jumping scene, however implausible, worked the audience into a dizzying start to the film.

The casino scenes were beautiful and of the right length to involve us. Eva Green left me cold, but at least it felt like a real liaison (not that I was ever convinced Bond had fallen for her)

All that was needed was a less jarring score to the film along the lines of 'You only live twice' or 'Diamonds are Forever' and I would have given a ten.

That said, there is at last, a Bond that fits the original mould and one that, as a Brit, I can feel proud of.
6/10
Cool but missing a good director
kotkit06730 November 2015
When I saw the rate of the movie on this site and rotten tomatoes , I saw that the movie was beloved by the users and the critics also .. SO, I decided to see the movie and I was deeply disappointed .. I saw a movie with old fashioned director and story .. I Think the story was too weak I could say .. the film started with too many actions then the rate went down so quick .. after too many actions , all the movie was just a bloody poker game nothing else .. and the director was moron .. he played so well with the prestige of the evil man with the scar face and lost it well in the half of the film when he made him a fool man who easily can be cheated .. and the way he died was so funny .. a lonely man was able to kill his men and break into easily and kill him !!!!! .. SO, the film would be really cool with a good director not that moron and a good story could really help .
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
give me Goldfinger any day
firstmagnitude1 January 2007
Give me Goldfinger any day. This movie reminds me of the American version of Godzilla -- Godzilla was reinvented into an animal were the former Japanese model acted like a human. With this Bond film, we have an animal, were the old Bond acted like a human. This movie was long, boring. I believe Bond movies needs to be retired. Bond formula has been worn out and the reinvented Bond doesn't work. At least with Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me -- I had fun. With Casino Royale, I kept asking myself, why did I waste money on this. The music was horrible until the end when they finally played the James Bond theme in full. The only time I smiled! What made the early Bond films fun was the music by John Barry. Most of his Bond scores were very memorable. The music for this film was forgettable including the movie.
15 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Disappointed
mgd_m11 December 2019
Standard action movie: lots of action, poor characterization, poor depth (despite they pretend to give some), a final twist, and mildly boring overall. I'm not a Bond expert but this time he seems to lack some style. This Bond is quite raw and not that charming. Poor music.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best James Bond
tamerhaddou-700087 October 2021
A big change in the character of James Bond, a strong appearance, better than playing the role of secret agent Daniel Craig and the late Sean Connery. I loved their role, a strong performance, Casino Royale is one of the cinematic masterpieces and the best movie of Agent 007.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I don't like "Bond" movies
onehappymasgr23 November 2006
But this one was excellent. I really expected it to be mediocre considering Casino Royale is a classic Bond movie and add to that that I really don't care for James Bond movies I went not expecting much. The action was wonderful, the acting was great, the story engaging. I loved Daniel Craig in the movie he did credit to this role which is no small feat. Bond fans expect a certain type of man for the role and I don't think Daniel was it for many. In the first place he is blond and he is not good looking in a classic sense as most of the Bond actors have been but has a more rugged, rough look. He played a cool, calm and stoic Bond quite well and was in great shape as well, especially considering he is almost 40. The love interest was played well and ended in a way to make it most interesting with an added twist to the love story at the end. I am looking forward to the next movie with Daniel Craig with anticipation.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
You Know My Name - Bond, James Bond
Mr_Sensitive23 November 2006
James Bond finally moves to its root and origin and to do so we take a look back in time at James Bond first assignment - to stop the investor from winning the casino tournament and used that money to fund the terrorist.

This time around director Martin Campbell came back to make probably the most accurate of the Ian Fleming version of Bond and making it a bit darker and more gruesome than before making one of the most enjoyable version of Bond.

This is the most controversial James Bond ever as they decided to bring in Daniel Craig as the new 007 to replace Pierce Brosnan. People were trashing him like hell as a guy that has no James look and having blonde hair. But despite all that Daniel does have his charm and he seems to blew everyone away with it. To me, he's over qualifies for the job and now that I really see him as Bond he is even more suitable than ever.

Despite so much controversy the outcome of the movie is brilliant and everything seem to working out perfectly. The casting is stunning; Eva Green probably is the most beautiful Bond's girl ever. The writing is more evolved and is very satisfying to see Bond movie with thing more than spy flick with gadget and women. He has more feeling, he relies on his instinct, he is arrogant and more heart than ever before, and he can bleed!!! The story is much better even without trademark gadget and good-looking faces. Unlike most of previous movie I'm extremely excited to see some serious actor in each and every character. They make this movie much more believable.

If you're looking for some great action sequences then you will be please with the movie. Casino Royale consist of numerous actions from every angle and the best part is the movie doesn't need to rely on CGI, which make the scene even more authentic and fun to watch. The score of the film is fit in the movie really well though the original soundtrack might not seem at first but it is pretty catchy and after hearing it couple of time - I like it.

My only problem is that I feel the directing is that great and the editing is too sudden, but otherwise this is definitely the best-written James Bond movie ever. Though I feel with so much change in characteristic in the franchise some of the people who are so into the olden 007 movie might not like it that much.

Overall, it is one hell of a movie that will sure entertain you in every way. I can't wait for the DVD to be release.

Plus Point: Daniel Craig make debut as Bond, Most realistic Bond.

Negative Point: Editing and directing.

Recommendation: Worth Every Penny.

Rating: 8/10 (Grade: A-)
9/10
"I'm The Money!"
rhiron23 November 2013
You certainly are 'Casino Royale'!!

A perfect reboot, the film takes the inadequacies of the original Bond series (fun though it was) and brings 007 into the Twenty-First Century!

Yes, for Fleming die-hards, it would have been great to see a vintage Bond adventure with old 1950s cars, styles, mannerisms and locations, but the production costs would have soared and the producers would still have been left with the question of how to repair the franchise after the frivolous excesses of 'Die Another Day' (2002).

This way, rebooting the franchise allowed the film-makers some artistic licence over Fleming's original (and probably most celebrated) Bond novel. Events taken from the novel are ramped up a bit to appeal to modern audiences (i.e. changing Soviet agents into terrorist cells, switching from chemin de fer to Texas Hold 'Em Poker, the climax in Venice) and others are added in afresh, but the essence of the novel is there.

Even though this was sold as a more realistic Bond film, 007 still drives a sporty new Aston Martin DBS; travels to exotic locations such as Nassau, Miami and Montenegro; dresses suavely, and is a killer with most of the ladies.

One lady in particular, Dame Judi Dench, is the only obvious reminder of the previous twenty Bond films (or at least Pierce Brosnan's entries), but even she is altered from her previous form, making her more aggressive and giving her a personal life this time around. A new 'M' (in a way) for a new James Bond. She even starts to sympathise with the new and rebellious 007 towards the end of the film...

But, 007 is also more human here, despite being Fleming's cold government-sanctioned killer who dislikes his job, but is good at it.

Without a doubt, beautiful French actress, Eva Green is the belle of the ball. Just as the other elements of the novel have been updated, so has the bewitching Vesper Lynd. Whereas previous Bond Girls have claimed to be 'the female 007', Vesper is James Bond's intellectual equal, as accustomed to reading people as he is. Rather than being an MI6 operative, she is a Treasury official and highly sceptical of Bond's uncontrollable ways, pinning down his weaknesses in seconds. However, there is a deeply touching story here, magnified beyond Fleming's concept of Vesper by Green's perceptive and honest performance, by which she lights up the screen whenever she appears on it.

The villain, Le Chiffre has previously been portrayed by the great actors Peter Lorre and Orson Welles. However, for his performance as the disfigured, cold, ruthless and sometimes even a little humorous banker to the world's terrorists, Dutch actor, Mads Mikkelsen has become internationally renowned. He is supported (if that is possibly the word), by fellow Dutchman, Jesper Christensen, who plays an important role that hints back to the days of the shadowy SPECTRE organisation.

The locations, pacing, action, dialogue - all are great, not least because this is the second Bond outing of Martin 'GoldenEye' Campbell, who once again invigorates audiences by introducing the latest incarnation of James Bond. But, this time, it is a James Bond who is earning his stripes and is walking a perilous tightrope between falling victim to his dangerous adversaries and being eaten alive by a Select Committee of MPs investigating the actions of MI6. And only by winning the trust of Dench's 'M' can he prove that he deserves to be on her team.

'Casino Royale' also gradually reintroduces the elements that have always made Bond great from the beginning - from the action, the cars, the girls, the playboy lifestyle to the attitude, the shaken not stirred Vodka Martinis, the tuxedo and, of course, the James Bond Theme. This film strips it all back and then subtly reintroduces it all to show us what James Bond is really made of.

Another modern classic that effectively merges the cinematic James Bond with his literary counterpart!
Drawing Wild Cards.
tfrizzell24 December 2006
James Bond's (Daniel Craig) first mission is to go to Montenegro in Eastern Europe and win a high-stakes poker tournament against a sadistic middle-man (Mads Mikkelsen) who is secretly funding terrorist nations and syndicates who crave world domination. Red-hot Eva Green is our Bond girl this time and we have second-to-none supporting players all over the board (Jeffrey Wright, Judi Dench and Giancarlo Giannini). The 21st official entry in the long-running series that began with "Dr. No" in 1962 will most be remembered for Craig's introduction as the famed British secret agent. Like fine wines, each installment has its pluses and minuses (as a rule more upside than down though) and this one is no exception. Craig, like every other man who has played Bond over the past 40 plus years, brings his own unique elements to the part. While overly long and different from the other earlier films, "Casino Royale" is still a more than adequate and worthy addition to the world's most famous cinematic series of pictures. 4 stars out of 5.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Movie........Bad Movie.
goldsausage2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So, this was to be my first ever Bond film I would watch in full length. My dad and I go (my dad is a Bond fan) but we come out totally disappointed.

So there we are, in the cinema and at the beginning I'm thinking "Whoa! This is definitely a movie to buy on DVD' and when the famous barrel gun scene starts I get an adrenaline rush.

After that comes the fight scene on which Bond and a bomb maker are fighting. I wasn't keen on this scene simply because just as the bomb-maker has Bond at gun point there's no bullets in his gun. Typical! Seen it all before, give us a new way to get out of a situation already!

And the bad guy (Le Chaffe, I think) kept reminding me of Johnny Depp as Edward Scissorhands but I did like how his eye would bleed.

Also, the poker scene. I know how to play poker, I play poker yet I found this scene incredibly boring and felt sorry for the poor souls who had no idea how to play poker. Yes I realise this was a very important part of the film/book but please! Would it have hurt to have it a bit More interesting?

Then later on comes the torture scene, or as I like to call it "Bond gets an itchy testicle scene". This, apart from the beginning, was the most entertaining part of the film.

Then just as I thought the movie was finishing another fight scene happens! So, here we are watching a house taking half an hour to fall down.

Then we have the end - I was happy.

And my dad didn't like the fact there was no gadgets (even though I warned him it was the first Bond novel and were going to be no gadgets).

High points about the movie: First scene Tortue scene Theme song (You know my name)

Low points of the movie: Everything else.
9/10
How Bond Should've Been
PyroSikTh21 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've said it contains spoilers, but I'm not giving any plot twists or in-depth details away...

I give Casino Royale a 9 out of 10. It wasn't the best film of 2006, but it was the best Bond film. Now, I know many will argue that the Bond films of the 60s were the best, or that Timothy Dalton was the best Bond, but Casino Royale is what Bond films should've been from the very beginning. When I was younger, I went out of my way to make sure I had seen all the Bond films past and future, and I enjoyed them thoroughly. However, I was younger, with younger eyes that are far more easily entertained and dazzled. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to see many Bond films in recent years with my more matured and film-budding eyes, but I did happen to catch Die Another Day a few months ago...

I remember going to the cinema to see Die Another Day on it's first day of release and I thoroughly enjoyed it. We were the only people in there. I didn't think much of it then, but now I look back and think it must have been a sign. When re-watching Die Another Day a few months ago, I couldn't finish it. It was so ridiculous and cheesy. Pierce Brosnan seemed more like an ignorant creep rather than a ladies man, and always had something (un)humourous to say after he killed some bad guys. With my more seasoned eyes, it was a shambles that shamed my memory of all the Bond films previous.

So I caught Casino Royale on a TV screening, just to see if they had done what I heard they had done in stripping it down and making it darker and grittier. Not only did they do that successfully, but they made a movie which could easily rival other movies of similar calibre. For once, there was in depth character development and a look into the Bond character beyond "he's a super spy who blows stuff up and beds beautiful women just for fun". Daniel Craig, and indeed the script, added more emotion to the character. He comforts those who get emotionally cut up by what he does, he gets knocked around and genuinely looks hurt. The Bond of Casino Royale isn't superhuman as Bond had been previously, but was more human than ever. He made mistakes and didn't always win. This is what makes Casino Royale the single best Bond film ever, and sets a precedence of what Bond films should always have been. Admittedly they sometimes got close, but never hit it on the head.

There's also less emphasis on action. Don't worry, the action is still there, but it thrills the viewer in more ways than just explosions and and car chases. On that note, I can only recall seeing one explosion in the entire 2 and a half hour running time. The Poker game in particular was one of the most thrilling segment I've seen in any film, particularly of a segment so relatively slow.

There is no Arch-villain who has some crazy plan for world domination and no side-kicks with diamonds in their face or over-large metal jaws. Instead it's an accountant with a problem with his eye that causes it to weep blood. Subtle, but ever much more darker and freakier than previous. On that note, this accountant also isn't a master of every fighting technique known to man. He is merely an accountant with a taste for gambling. In numerous parts of the film, it's strongly and explicitly shown that he isn't even the one running the show. Also, his exit is far less dramatic than any other villain in the past. Disappointing for some, but much more pleasing for those who like an air of believability. Lastly on the note of villains, there is no scene where Bond and the villain sit at a table while the villain unveils his plan and then swiftly orders the murder of Bond, no. Casino Royale makes this point in the very first scene as the villain behind the desk desperately tries to stall Bond with a proud look on his face, as he's rudely interrupted by a bullet to his head.

There are no extraordinary gadgets. The only thing that comes close is a portable defibrillator, and even that could quite likely be possible to see in the car of a spy. There are no prevalent Bond girls and no near explicit sex scenes, and flirtatious one liners are turned into a smart and witty dialogue.

All in all, this film is a quality film, with elements of action, romance, comedy and thriller, that just so happens to have a main character called James Bond. This is what Bond films should've been.
8/10
Craig IS Bond, bravo!
Pierre_D23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It is always with some trepidation that one approaches a new Bond film. Lately they have degenerated into facile acting, cheap gimmicks and crazy plots.

However, Casino Royale reboots the Bond series in style. Though overly long at points, Craig puts his stamp on the role early and shows great ruthlessness and a cool aplomb as well. However, he is not perfect as his arrogance and emotion get the best of him many times.

Mads Mikkelsen is excellent as Le Chiffre and makes a poker game stand out and be an interesting setting even for non-adepts of the game. Eva Green shines as Vesper Lynd, more than Bond's intellectual equal though she proves as so many women in this series, disposable.

Caterina Murino is incredibly sensual and it's with women like her in Bond series that you wish some could have recurring roles as love interests and active partners.

The tone of the movie is quite gritty and refers to terrorism and the post 9-11 world more than once. Gone are the SMERSH agents, Blofeld and conspiracies of the past; now it's Bond against subversive elements and it works.

Gave it only a 8 out of 10 because I missed Q and it was overly long.
4/10
Mediocre at best
s-rimondini4 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The first ever Bond film that made me think: "why didn't they cut this boring scene?". I've read and understood all the intentions about rebooting the franchise to make it more in tune with the new century, but frankly it all failed miserably despite a good acting effort by DG.

Forgiving the neglected continuity of the series (the young Bond gets his 00 in 2006!) and the poor filming locations choice (for instance they pretend to set the casino in Montenegro while the architecture and the environment is clearly from far away, Switzerland and Czech Republic in reality), there are two good action scenes at the beginning and at the end of the movie and a long dull improbable plot in between, but most of all there's nothing resembling the Bond "cliche" we all loved and made this character so long-living.

The poker (hold'em... yawn... Bond should have refused to play such a game) scenes are too long and boring, the love story is lame and more annoying than Lazenby wedding, Bond himself isn't able to escape death without other's significant help (once by Vesper and once by who?).

There's almost no humor at all, no gadgets, no Q, no witty lines, at the end without the 007 tag on it this would be an average spy movie like dozens that could be seen on theaters nowadays.
A very different James Bond, and it works
harry_tk_yung3 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
(Watched in Toronto)

The structure of this new James Bond movie is the manifestation of the three acts in a magical trick as explained in "The prestige" (2006). I have been stealing glances at my watch, not out of boredom, but for the purpose of getting a feel for the structure of the movie, and the surprise outcome is an association with "The prestige". In this 144-minute movie, the first hour sets up the "The Pledge", with minor villain, minor beauty and smaller stakes. The next hour is "The Turn", when we get the major villain, major beauty and big stakes. But if you've watched any action thriller at all, you know only too well that this is not all. The last 25 minutes deliver the ace of trump, "The Prestige".

This is not new (and is generally predictable). Likewise the well-crafted, exciting action. The most remarkable thing about this 2006 edition of "Casino Royale", however, is a James Bond unlike any that we have seen before. No longer a fairy-tale character whose tux stays as if freshly pressed after a life-and-death fight, this is an 007 of blood and sweat. The establishing scene (not the prelude in black and white but the mad chase up and a crane) shows clearly that this is a Bond that can stumble and blunder, sometimes even clumsily, like anybody else. We must remember that this is the story of how 007 started out (the working title of the movie is "Bond Begins", just like Batman), just getting his promotion to "double O" status – a rough diamond rather than a slick, seasoned secret agent. I think that is partly why Daniel Craig is chosen. Even someone as manly as Hugh Jackman would still be too dashingly handsome. And Craig, by a near-unanimous verdict, has done a great job.

As to others in cast, it's nice to see Eva Green chic and glamorous after her youthful (The Dreamers) and classic (Kingdom of heaven) beauty personas. Jeffery Wright, Bill Murray's electronic wiz neighbour in "Broken flowers" and Christopher Plummer's bright protégé in "Syriana", makes an almost cameo appearance. And of course, as "M", Judi Dench is Judi Dench.
7/10
You know my name; Bond...James Bond.
bodhi-1326229 March 2016
'Casino Royale' is a well crafted '007' film that does justice and stays true to Ian Fleming's novel. Martin Campbell surely has outdone himself since his first 'Bond' film 'GoldenEye', with a different directing style that makes this the most modern and grounded of all the 'Bond' films before.

1. Daniel Craig is no Sean Connery, but he does the best he can with the character of James Bond even though his acting comes off a bit stiff and emotionally detached at times. However, he does have the best physicality of the previous Bond actors and it sure does show in all of the action sequences which are choreographed amazingly.

2. The one sequence which stands out above the rest, is the spectacular foot chase after the opening credits where Bond pursues a bomb-maker involved in a sinister plot which is uncovered later on in the film. All the action in this film is done surprisingly well under Campbell's direction (which I had hoped later directors would have taken note on...but didn't) with all emulating a sense of suspense, excitement and most of all...consequence.

3. Mads Mikkelsen is even more exceptional than Craig as the cunning antagonist 'Le Chiffre'. He brings a sense of mystery and style as the character with so many interesting dimensions as a villain that he steals the show whenever he's on screen. One flaw is that he doesn't have enough screen-time, especially in the third act of the film. He proves himself to be smarter than Bond and just outdoes him at every turn when it comes to style.

4. Now the bad part. The real anchor that weighs this film down is the campy love-story. Craig and Green (Vesper) have an interesting dynamic when they play-off each other with a sort of love/hate relationship once she is introduced at the beginning of the film's second act. The movie takes a huge nose-dive near the 2hr mark when their love-story comes front and center. At that point, it feels like the film has outstayed it's welcome when we get a full 15mins of Bond and Vesper laying on beaches, having sex, living in hotels and exchanging lines of horrible dialogue with each other. These scenes (undoubtedly) should have been cut from the final film, cause it unnecessarily adds extra length to an already 2hr 30min running time.

5. Lastly, in no way am I denying that Eva Green isn't an attractive woman, but the actress who appears in the first act (Caterina Murino) is an absolute knock-out and is more of a classic beauty suited for a 007 film. She should have played the female lead of Vesper Lynd rather than Green based on appearance alone, cause she just emits hotness;)

If I were to decide, I'd say 'Casino Royale' is the best of the Daniel Craig '007' films since the others (the closet being 'Skyfall') never really live up to the bar which was set be this reboot.
7/10
Discontinuity, Mr Bond?
michael-connelly310 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So Casino Royale is okay, but the little things that are wrong detract from the overall Bondness of the pic. The opening credits are wrong-- no women in silhouette dancing around, the Bond Himself coming in and out of view-- what is this stuff? The card game? Hello? This isn't the sort of card game Bond plays-- it's Americanized for no good reason. One of the appeals of Bond is that he's a Brit, and with the playing field everywhere *but* America (save for a short action sequence in Miami, which one could argue isn't really America at all...) the dumbing down is insulting. Plotwise, there's no clue what happens to the evil bimbette-- a lose end that will bother film goers once they are driving home and reflecting on the movie. I don't think Albert would be happy with this one.
9/10
Someone needs to bring Campbell and Baird back to the franchise.
Offworld_Colony7 February 2020
I could nitpick this film, but its such a triumph of a reboot in every regard, and such a pleasurable quintessential action movie with every dept on all cylinders that not enjoying every aspect of this movie is an exercise in futility. Watching with a raucous, amped crowd after Secret Cinema, cheering and whooping at Bond's successes, tortures, and emergences from water in his trunks, Casino rarely shows its age even though it's 13 years old. It's still an invigorated, relevant, creative and sure-footed franchise at this point; every frame and every scene has a myriad of little details that flesh out the world, and make the film feel grounded even though it hits the franchise-high notes of spy-fantasy.

A brazen, brutish, excessive Bond film reboot that I have almost nothing more to say about than has already been written.

The decision to use previous reboot director Martin Campbell is welcome and clever and the holdover of Judi Dench as M is as obvious as it is surprising.

Art house flourishes; the snapshot in the cut of the section chief's family photo as he's shot, a creatively integrated gun barrel sequence, the Bond-to-CCTC camera cut, and more, elevate the material and prove it as something different.

Mads Mikelson is such a menacing and out-there newcomer at the time that it's hard to remember that he's just a banker and not a maniacal evil villain which is a strength. And with Mr. White, the film manages to build a franchise without ever looking like it's trying to.

The film is bloated and the running time and sheer variety in it makes it a film not just easily put on, but as a flagship evening film with buddies, it has all the whizbang action and badassery and all the clever stings of dialogue you can smirk about.

But overall it ticks basically every box and is still, almost ten years later, a hallmark of the action summer blockbuster genre. The sumptuous music, the sharp editing, the electric photography, the enrapturing and devilish Eva Green, and the hard, dead eyes of Craig's broken Assassin make it a film to remember and to heartily recommend.

Bonus opening credits review: Aptly taking Bond into the videogame age and using the mocap to spice up the notion of watching a film that will revolve around a card game is clever. The lack of exploited women enforces the masculinity of this iteration and makes it feel a little sports gamey. The cheesy music is the right kind of cheesy as opposed to the cringey "00" bullet holes and 'status approved' cheesiness that is eventually saved by that ice cold walk into the light and steely blue eyed look as a focal point of Craig's Bond.
5/10
True Bond Afficionados Beware.
wbwilcox38 April 2007
As a real Bond buff from the beginning (60s), I found this to be the least faithful of all the 007 movies to the writings of Ian Fleming, who created it all. The authentic British charm and subtlety was replaced with crude, disrespectful behavior. The film was too American. In my view, it had shallow acting, brusque clichés and excessive, unnecessary violence. The "Q" element was deleted, reflecting no interest in new technology that was a keystone of the Bond tradition. The fun of the romantic chase is replaced with a perspective that raw sex is all that matters to our hero. Fleming's Bond had class, something Daniel Craig was never able to display with the limiting role he was asked to portray. Even an excellent performance by Judi Dench had no chance of redeeming this film. Better to spend your money on a Stallone or Schwartzenagger film.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
did anyone else see Richard Branson?
jnavcrew17 November 2006
I just saw the bond film and thought it was outstanding! One quick observation though: did anyone else notice a quick cameo by Richard Branson, Billionaire owner of Virgin Airways? I think I saw him in the scene in the Miami airport as Bond was heading through the metal detector screening area. I know it's not a big deal but someone else take a look and let me know what you think.

Considering the plot point at that time in the movie it kind of makes sense that he would be there. After that time I kept looking for other cameos and the camera seemed to linger on some other characters but I didn't recognize anyone else.

The movie was great, though. I heard one critic say that it was made kind of in the same vein as the Bourne series. I concur.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic Bond for the 21st Century
adslut22 November 2006
I loved this movie and have seen in twice already! I'm happy I can watch Bond again. I loved Sean Connery so much that all Bonds since have paled in comparison and I stopped seeing the movies when Roger Moore was Bond. Just too stupid to sit through. But Daniel Craig IS Bond not only because he's the Bond that Flemming wrote, but because he brings this gritty, physical toughness that's so sexy and compelling. I loved the fighting, his blood-drenched shirts, his sweating and constant movement. The franchise had gotten tired and needed an infusion of new blood and I commend the film makers on all of their choices. The titles are beautiful, the music contemporary, the women smart. M was more human and not just an initial with one scene. The dated gadgets of Q were gone and the scene where Bond gets poisoned and almost dies when the defibrillator disconnects was one of the most exciting I've ever seen. The writers had an awesome task and they did a great job. They had to keep millions of fans happy, introduce a new Bond who wasn't well-received in the beginning and pull all future Bond films into the 21st century. I think they achieved what they set out to do. There are people who have complained about the film being dark and not fun. I disagree. I think the fun comes from the edginess and depth (relative depth, it was still an action flick after all!) and from the fun it makes of itself. The new Bond, when asked if he wants his martini shaken or stirred, says "Do I look like I give a damn?" A clever way to say goodbye to the old Bond and hello to the new.
6/10
Bond Beds Babes, Sinks Buildings!
rmax3048236 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is James Bond straight, for a change. The original series, begun in the early 1960s, was a big and inexpensive hit. A lot of trend setters were reading Ian Fleming -- President Kennedy was a fan -- and Fleming's stories made mincemeat out of the Cold War. SMERSH? And the young Sean Connery was the perfect screen incarnation of Bond, a parody of handsome masculinity -- and a knowing one -- with that cartoonishly broad mouth, that tongue-in-cheek smirk, and the throw-away wisecracks the script gave him.

The series may have been the initial stimulus for the rash of increasingly silly action films that followed. The series itself seemed swallowed up by them in the 1980s but soldiered on anyway, though I can't imagine who was anxious to see them.

This one takes Bond seriously. The jokes are few. Although the formula is overly familiar, it's clear that a lot of money was spent on this attempt to breathe new life into a dead horse. (These mixed clichés do full justice to the film.) In the opening scene, Bond chases a villain through an industrial construction site in Madagascar. The pair climb innumerable staircases of latticed steel before coming mano a mano at the end of a sky-high giant crane, after which they leap from the top of one building to the top of the next one lower down, until they reach the ground and somebody pulls a gun and -- well, the blanks can be filled in at leisure. Since there is no more USSR, the heavies are now some camarilla of terrorists, not that it matters. Spectacular stunt work, by the way. In the final action sequence, James Bond sinks a building on the Grand Canal in Venice with a few well-placed pistol shots. (The building floats on pontoons.) The action is interrupted by some short scenes of intrigue, a card game with a pot of $130 million that today, given the dollar's trajectory, is worth about half that much. Bond's chief opponent in the game is Le Chiffre (Mad Mikkelsen) who has a face and expression resembling that of a freshly stuffed and painted corpse. Daniel Craig is Bond himself. He's at least not ludicrously handsome though heavily muscled. Whether he can act or not can't be determined because evidently he was told not to try. Eva Greene, on the other hand, is magnificently glamorized. She could steal my $130 million any day, though I wouldn't let her near my Swedish Kroner. A dirty shame she has to drown at the end, despite her perfidy, inasmuch as we haven't yet had a chance to see her nude. We'll have to rely on our memories of Bertolucci's "The Dreamers" for that.

Should you see it? Sure, why not? There hasn't been an expensive, colorful, exotic action movie in at least a year. There was an earlier version of "Casino Royale", in 1967, I think. It was a headlong, feckless, comic spoof. I enjoyed it more than this version.
1/10
This movie made me cry in boredom
jarosjan30119 November 2006
Okay I am not one to rank movies low. But this movie should be put under the worst 100 romantic section, not no where near action or suspense. I have to say this is the slowest, if not most boring bond movie i have ever seen. It starts of good enough for the first 20 minutes or so, then just drags on about nothing really, so boring. I mean wheres the action that always known to be in bond films. No gadgets what so ever, well none that you could call unique. Beautiful women? exactly there aren't any. I tell you "Die another Day" was great compared to this. The plot, well lets just say your guess is as good as mine. Just another over-hyped movie, almost makes me want my money back. Its funny how some praise this as the new great bond movie. Well I for one thing think this movie is in my 100 worst movies! Makes you wonder how much the movie industry is paying the critics to give it such high reviews. Anyways hopefully I have helped. Now its all up to you to make the decision, which will you choose to see, or not to see?
35 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Plot-holes royale
0w012 May 2020
Yet another Bond change, and they don't even mention a single thing about the change... not even a 'He's on a permanent vacation" quip or nothing like that... they just completely ignore the fact that they're now calling another person 'James Bond'. I think it's just sloppy writing and laziness that they don't even want to think of an excuse for 'the new guy'.

Let's look at the plot-holes: The bulldozer that Bond drives has bulletproof glass... that's not realistic as bulldozers don't have bulletproof glass... so Bond would have taken 3 shots to the face and died right on the spot if this movie was realistic, and this creates a plot-hole.

Another plot-hole is where Bond is standing with 4 guys aiming AK47's at his face... and he throws down his gun, draws another gun, aims, shoots a guy, aims, then shoots some gas canisters, all the while the guys with their AK47's DON'T shoot him... this whole sequence of him dropping his gun, aiming twice, shooting twice, takes 2-3seconds... so you're telling me that the reaction time of 4 armed guys is MORE than 2-3seconds? The average human's reaction time is 0.25 seconds, not bloody 2-3seconds! Bond would have been riddled with bullets before he got the second shot off... this creates another plot-hole.

Another plot-hole is a scene where Bond chases a petrol-tanker... instead of just shooting the bloody thing and thus exploding it safely with nobody getting hurt, and stopping the threat of it exploding near the intended target, he spends 5 minutes wrestling with the bad-guy for control of the tanker... makes zero sense and is illogical.

Yet another plot-hole is the fact that choking someone unconscious does NOT kill them... they regain consciousness within 15seconds or so; you'd have to keep choking them for another 20-30seconds after they passed out, in order to actually kill them... so the choking scene in the movie is completely fake and unrealistic. Also, during that choking scene, the girl just stands there and does bloody nothing... any normal human in that same situation would at least try to assist in some way, but no, she just stands there, and that's another plot-hole.

Another plot-hole is where the bad-guys dump the girl's body in the middle of the road, and Bond doesn't see it... yet only a few seconds earlier, they showed Bond being not even 300meters behind them in his car, so it's literally impossible for them to have dumped the girl's body in the middle of the road AND gotten out of sight, without Bond seeing them doing it, since he was only a few seconds behind them in the chase.

This could easily have been an 8/10 action movie, if only they took the time to NOT include so many plot-holes. All of the plot-holes are avoidable and it's just through sheer laziness that they've been left in the film. That unfortunately results in a 5/10 film that is unrealistic and not believable.
9/10
Craig gives Bond some much-needed edge...
cat_ranchero7 October 2012
There is quite a lot of action before things focus on the Casino; all of this is well done and features much of the stunt work in the film. I have to say it does appear to get a little lost once the main focus of the film is established. Once we do get there the scenes in and around the Casino are quite compelling and it is here that we actually get a feeling for how Daniel Craig portrays Bond. He has vulnerabilities that make him appear more human and this in turn gives the audience a chance to understand his motivations. I must admit I really enjoyed Craig's portrayal and am looking forward to more of the same. As for the film as a whole; I very much enjoyed it. Very entertaining with everything we've come to expect from a Bond film, and more.

SteelMonster's verdict: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

My score: 8.5/10

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.
3/10
Where did James Bond go?
Nozal21 March 2007
I am a huge fan of James Bond but this film made me ashamed to be a fan. What happened to the days of Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan when James Bond was a good character with many different levels, not a shoot now, ask questions later attitude.

Daniel Craig acted the role poorly and I think he was wrong for the role. He has neither the look or feel of Bond and the portrayal was poor. I am no fan of Roger Moore but I would watch his version of Bond happily in comparison to this film.

There was no storyline to the film and fifty minutes in I was still begging the question, where is this film going? The characters of M was also poor and completely out of character.

The film took unrealistic to a whole new level. No man can undergo what he underwent in this film and come out barely worse for wear. Also, no man can have his privates whipped numerous times and laugh about it.

In my opinion, this was a poor film and not worth the money I spent on it. I would much rather return to the days of Connery and Brosnan where we got stellar performances, a good story and a deep longing for more Bond.

This film is better suited to the shoot em ups the yanks enjoy and not the subtle espionage films we British like.
5/10
Good film but very disappointing as Bond movie.
info-45401 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was most certainly not the best Bond ever, but the worst ever. Relative that is, because in the 60's the technique was not that far to create such nice things that can be done with f.e. computers nowadays.

As an action movie, it was a great movie with a lot of stunning action, great fighting-scene's etc., but this had nothing to do with bond anymore.

Bond movies are just known for things which can not happen in real, special techniques (made by Q) from which we saw zero in this film. A special agent breaking in at his boss's house? No Q or replacement for him, no handy toys, no humorous and sarcastic lines (which -all- bond types did, even Sean Connery. The torture scene with the rope made me sleepy, much more variation could have been done there and the solution of Bond in trouble there came way to quick and too easy.

More realistic action but a Bond story without a happy end with the bad guy going down but an open end in fact??? "We have to talk" and then the movie is done? That might be realistic but it has nothing, really nothing to do with a real Bond story in the line of all Bondstory's until yet.

Especially about the open end I was very disappointed, certain sections were too real or were displayed too long. Like I said, a very good action movie but a sorry excuse for a Bond movie.

So very disappointed but still a 5 because the action and actors played very well. I really hope the next Bond movie will be a very lot more like previous movies.
2/10
Product Placement Royale
kidda_la13 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I guess the comment title says it all, not since "I Robot" have I seen so many blatant advertisements in one film. It's a new low when we have to see Richard Branson in a few shots, I guess airport security would hassle you when you walk through the airport with a large wheelbarrow of money to pass on to the producers. It would have been quite amusing if Bond had slapped him on his way past and mentioned that his trains where rubbish but hey, Bond Films aren't tongue in cheek….anymore.

As for the chase scene, I'm sure in other Bond films Bond has caused a fair amount of mayhem when pursuing someone but I can't remember him needlessly bulldozing through a building site causing death and destruction for the local workers. Apparently Bond doesn't care about innocent people anymore but from the portrayal by this actor he doesn't look like he cares about much.

I wasn't really that fussed about the lack of "Q" or Moneypenny, if "M" and the other agents are anything to go by then they'd be blithering idiots too. Apparently "M" is now unable to keep her passwords, name and address secure, not someone I would want running an agency that deals in secrecy and cover ups.

If you want to watch a Texas no limit hold'em tournament I'd recommend watching the WPT, they're more fun, there's more suspense, you have less idea what the players hold (even though on TV they show you) and they also take less time than this film. People don't try to sell you watches as you play either but I think I've already covered that.

Just a few more points; No Bond Film should have ever a scene were Bond gets whacked in the plums many times with a large rope! No Film should have the end dragged out that it makes you think the end of LOTR: Return of the King" was short.

2 out of 10 for the Free Runner
7/10
Actually, a pretty decent movie.
JWJanneck27 December 2006
To say it upfront: I am not a Bond fan. Haven't been since I was maybe 14. I find the old movies bad, horribly acted, badly scripted, with corny unfunny jokes, unbearably stereotypical characters etc. etc. The newer ones aren't much better, a bit more modern, better effects, but basically the same predictable super-agent drivel as the old stuff. Most of all, I tend to find those over-hyped discussions about who is going to fail to act in the role of this inconsequential Bond character most tiring.

So it did come as somewhat of a surprise to me that I found myself in a screening of the latest installment of the series. I had not planned to watch another one of those in the cinema.

However, what was even more surprising was that this one was actually a pretty decent movie. Not bad at all. Quite enjoyable, as a matter of fact.

Much of that is due, of course, to the somewhat different Bond character. This will doubtless anger many fans of the series, but the latest Bond is a more believable character, almost human-like in its complexity, a character that engages in what might pass for actual relations with fellow characters in the context of this genre. Being quite fed up with the slick super-agent featured in the rest of the series, I found this was a welcome change.

Craig does a respectable job at pulling off that role, and so does the rest of the cast. Obviously, the roles aren't of the great dramatic type, and the range required for them is no challenge to a fairly high-caliber collection of actors. Nonetheless, they do their jobs well, which is not something one can say about every action movie.

In spite of some changes in the basic ¨flavor¨ of the movie, there are still enough of the other Bond attributes to satisfy any but the most fanatic fans: high production values, some great photography, beautiful women (also perhaps in somewhat more complex roles), fancy vehicles, a good dose of action, and lots of references, some of which outright hilarious (the scene in which he orders his martini rendered me helpless with laughter for a good minute or two). Gone is practically all of the corniness, the bad jokes and the lame-brained stereotypes (beyond, of course, the basic good/bad categories).

What is left is a pretty decent spy/action flick, solid entertainment, beautifully photographed and professionally executed. If you could at all enjoy that type of movie, and if you are not someone who has firm a priori views on what actor should be playing Bond or how, or what elements ¨define¨ a Bond movie and therefore have to be present, I see no reason why you should not enjoy this one.
8/10
Pretty Good
bob-107520 November 2006
Firstly I must say that this film has been greatly over-hyped. But having said that it is very entertaining. The plot is highly unlikely and very far fetched but then which Bond film isn't? The difference here is the lazy charm and cold violence of 007. We must not forget that Bond is an assassin (you don't get a licence to kill for nothing) and lately he has been reduced to a a swarve, middle aged commando. Craig makes him something human, direct and brutal. He is slightly cold but not without a humorous streak - usually at his own expense. Very hard to judge him as a new Bond - because he is so unlike any previous Bond. But the fight scenes, chases and general pace keep up the interest. It's a good escape for 2 hours. It would actually be an interesting exercise to re-visit the original books and re-make them as Fleming wrote them. With today's technology we could even set them in the fifties and sixties - now that would be a challenge! - and Craig is probably the man to carry it off,
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What the bleep??? Bond, where?
goranconkic21 October 2007
OK, I did wait almost a year to see this movie on DVD because I'm kind of a James Bond Fan, but now I'm sorry for loosing over two hours of my life on something like this. I don't even call it a movie, because as first point of my dislike is that of bad acting...god was that awful. I don't know where They picked this guy (Daniel Craig). Is he even British? 'cause I can speak with a better Brit accent than him. Then the plot...It's just unbelievable,amazing. Of course no one could see a plot,when it' so stupid that it hurts and insults one's intelligence. Just like somebody said here "It's just like Transporter or XXX" At least in those movies you expect that,but in this movie I expected at least some of that Brit Bondish something that the other movies had, instead "Casino Royale" came out.

Oh and yeah...one of the best parts in this movie was Crna Gora (Montenegro) that doesn't look 1% of it self in this movie?! It looks like Czech Republic amazingly enough. But who would know and care...At least they got the sign boards right...mostly.

All in all summary of this movie is: It's just another Hollywood (American) money maker. For anyone with a bit more IQ this is an insult and I would recommend it NOT to be watched...
7/10
Not bad at all!
mashadsk22 December 2006
In spite of numerous bad reviews from people I know, the new Bond turned to be pretty good. Amazing action, good humor... Even Bond (who is terrible as Bond, as for me)... I had lots of fun looking at him menacingly buckling his eyes and puffing his lips. That was very funny to watch:) Daniel is not classic Bond at all, but anyway he blend in this movie completely, as well as his girl, who I also didn't like, though it's a total IMHO. One of my favorite scenes is parkoure pursuit, which is very unrealistic as always, but very spectacular!

Definitely worth seeing if you like action movies with fun here and there, and can stand the fact that it's not Brosnan any more.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond Died In The 80's. Live With That
dedleon17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When Bond came out in the 60's it was, in many ways, decades ahead of its time. But the other movies caught up with it in the 80's. During that period, when CGI was still almost non-existent, Bond could compete with the best of them. if you watch the action in Indiana Jones, Stallone movies and many contemporaneous sci-fi movies, you can see that Bond is up there in the visual and special effects department. Enter the CGI – Bond, albeit a bigger than life action-adventure movie, is about a REAL secret agent fighting REAL villains and therefore it cannot make use of any science fictional devices, supernatural occurrences, or any too obvious violations of the laws of physics (e.g. some kung fu movies), up until the advent of CGI (and even until today) bond was considered to be over the top and unrealistic, that is because of the bigger than life action scenes, the glamorous lifestyle, the fact that the villains don't simply shoot him, the big explosions, the super-gadgets and the incredible stunts he manages to pull. The problem, in my opinion, is that the modern films in the 'bigger than life action adventure' category, can and do use the most cutting edge special effects they can muster, and when comparing them to Bond, it's like comparing HALO 2 to Ms. Pacman. Everything that has been done in the JB series during the past 12 years, could have been done in the 80's. JB, due to its inherent limitation cannot use cutting edge technology to its maximum effect (it does use super-gadgets to try to narrow the gap, but the last movie, with its invisible car showed that JB will have to cross the line to sci-fi in order to do so, and that's a big No No).

All the other movies move forward, their only limit is the human imagination, and the technology enables them to tell stories that couldn't have been told otherwise. JB is just shuffling the same old scenes: in one movie he will be on a camel and chased by an helicopter, and in the next one he'll be on a race boat, chasing a beautiful female spy named Ann Aljoy, and in the next one ski down the slope while being chased by gliders and in the next…, COME ON! This kind of action is so antiquated and just repetitive, how can you compare it to Neo dodging bullets in slow-mo, Spiderman fighting the sandman, Magneto lifting a bridge, CGI Yoda fighting a light-saber duel. Well, YOU CAN'T. (and if they do a new Indiana Jones you KNOW it will have killer CGI). The fact that Casino Royale was beaten by Happy Feet – a CGI animated movie is more than telling.

And please don't tell me that I cannot compare Bond to these movies, since Bond is supposed to be real. Like I said, Bond puts itself in the 'Big action movies' category so I certainly may; in fact, how can I not? It's amazing how something that looked so cool and cutting edge in the 80's looks so lame and boring compared to films today. Next to those movies Bond looks like a pathetic, feeble ordinary man who should have died in the eighties. Those movies really raised the bar miles above JB's head and he could never catch up to them. Actually Bond's producers know all these things very well, that's why they released it in the wilderness of November, they wouldn't dare release it in the summer against the likes of Spidey, Superman and Pirates. Bond is just a middle sized action movie, and it will get smaller, mark my words. (maybe not in absolute numbers, but certainly in comparison with the big boys).

Face it, Bond died in the 80's. Live (with it) and let (Bond) die.
3/10
What happened in the middle of the film? Poker scene unbelievable
michael-roberti23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly, I would like to say, if this wasn't a Bond film, I would be giving it a higher mark. First of all, there is no way that Daniel Craig makes a very good Bond. First of all, he isn't good looking enough. The only thing he has going is his (very) blue eyes, which seemed to be zoomed in on at any moment of suspense. And where was his humour? Brosnan, Connery and Moore previously always had a smooth response, especially in adversity, but Craig's sharp lines always appears contrived.

Having said that, the first half hour of the film is very good. Plenty of action, and everything is set up for an interesting story. and so to the poker section of the film. To someone who knows about and plays a lot of poker, the players on the table appear to be complete amateurs even though they're supposedly playing for $15 million each. The CIA man at the table offers Bond his re-buy of $5million because he himself is 'leaking chips', but a real player would always back themselves to come good. And the final hand is something you would see every 25 years playing every day. but that is just me being picky I suppose.

The love story seems to develop from absolutely nowhere, and really isn't very interesting at all. There just didn't seem to be any chemistry.

All in all, a reasonable (if over-long) film, but classic Bond it certainly ain't.
8/10
James Bond reinvented--darkly
preppy-38 December 2006
James Bond (Daniel Craig) is after world terrorists in this one. Judi Dench is back as M telling him off left and right. The plot is kind of vague but it ends up with Bond and a sexy sidekick (Eva Green) paired off against a thoroughly evil man (Mads Mikkelsen).

OK--James Bond has been reinvented in this film with Craig in the role. Is Craig good as Bond? Kind of. He's not handsome at all (at 38 he looks 45) but he has a great body, holds his own in fight scenes and is a VERY good actor. Also this Bond is more serious than the others. He's not making bad jokes (like Roger Moore did) or acting like a sexist pig (Sean Connery). He's dead serious and will kill when he has to--the previous Bond films seemed to shy away from Bond killing anybody. This Bond also gets hurt (you see his face crisscrossed with scratches after one fight) and he bleeds--quite a lot too. This film is VERY violent--it pushes the PG-13 rating to its limit. I personally think it went too far--the torture scene where he is tied nude to a chair was not needed. Not everything has changed though--he has a beautiful woman by his side who eventually falls for him...and is of NO use in a fight (once or twice I wanted to yell at Green to do something). But Green IS good and looks stunning.

The film is a little too long (but most Bond films are) and doesn't make much sense. Still, all in all, it was an entertaining movie. I'm only giving it an 8 because I think the violence went overboard. Still this is an interesting redo of Bond. Worth catching.
3/10
James Bland
darren-41024 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First things first...I'm not a huge Bond film fan but with an open mind, an admiration for Daniel Craig's acting ability and the endless praise heaped upon this film in mind I went to see Casino Royale. The first 15 minutes of the film are the best - from that moment on nothing stood out as memorable - it also featured a laughable, weak bad guy with a trademark scar on the eye and dodgy accent. I know Bond is supposed to be a little tongue in cheek but after the stories of this showing a different side of 007 I hoped for more. The story was all over the place, the product placement annoying, the characters forgettable and the film far too long. I thought Bond villains used lasers and sharks to torture special agents not a wicker chair and a brick on a piece of rope - whats next a Chinese burn?

That said Daniel Craig's performance probably stopped me from leaving the cinema early.

I tend to judge films on how much I am looking forward to buying the film on DVD when it comes out - so there's £15 saved then.

To quote Alan Partridge "stop getting Bond wrong"
Bond, back to basics
Emma Allison3 December 2006
Like many, I was horrified by the appointment of Daniel Craig but by halfway through the film, I was converted. Strip away the superficial differences - gadgets, tuxedo, looks, sleazy charm - and this is still Bond. This is Bond as he was intended to be - a spy, an assassin and a 'problem' solver.

Daniel Craig isn't as good looking or charming or in-your-face as the other Bonds, but he brings a subtlety and understated power to the role which had become sadly lacking, instead being replaced in recent years by wholly unrealistic events and characters. This Bond is an enigma and unpredictable, as a good spy should be if he wants to stay alive. The events are believable and the characters complex, what a pleasure!

I was a huge fan of Pierce Brosnan as Bond but this film has addressed issues I had with the series I didn't know I had. The film is breathtaking, raw and powerful and Daniel Craig is a resounding success. He did a truly magnificent job despite enormous negative reactions and his increased effort shows. He has reinvented a beloved character and actually improved him, which is no mean feat. I have never been so happy to be so wrong.
4/10
OK, action-filled Bond movie...
dwpollar1 April 2007
1st watched 3/31/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Martin Campbell): OK, action-filled Bond movie with usual over-the-top action but with very little humor to give the viewer a break. Daniel Craig is fine and manly enough for the role and he also adds a little more edginess to the sometimes placid character to make him more complex for the modern movie going audience but doesn't add much in the humor area. Because of the nature of these films, the added humor is important and we don't get much here. There is a short romantic interlude that doesn't last very long(because you know--Bond's girls usually don't last very long in the plot--poor James!!) The movie is like a 2 and ½ hour roller coaster ride for the most part which just overwhelms the viewer who can't wait for things to slow down. I came into this movie expecting good things because of what I've heard and read about the movie but left disappointed. I really believe that Bond movies should be a thing of the past now that the material(the Ian Fleming books) have already been used up but they keep giving us more. And I guess as the audiences poor in we'll get remakes and more remakes just to keep the series going----sigh
6/10
A great Bond BUT a terrible film
mark-19871 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Initially I was very impressed with this movie as it contains certainly one of the best Bond characters that I've ever seen. However, at one point during the film, Bond descends into a coma and begins dreaming the typical pearly white heaven one has come to witness on soaps such as Days of Our Lives, yet there is no clear moment where he awakens. Actually, quite confusingly, the coma appears to last for the entire remaining length of the film! Very disappointing to see a story that begins so engagingly, and forms the Bond character so well, to become so abstract and inanely formulaic. Personally I lost interest in Bond films many years ago when I first saw a semi-trailer launch onto it's rear four wheels while it's 2 front wheels were in the air. Since then, I have approached Bond films with an obvious apprehension (particularly when Pierce Brosnan played 007). Until, while watching this latest Bond instalment my faith was renewed, UNTIL the coma began. The viewer is constantly left in suspense and expectation while waiting for James to awaken and make things right. Unfortunately (both for the viewer and the producers alike) this never seems to happen, and the coma persists until the finale, leaving the truth purely elusive as a product of the viewer's imagination. Entirely disappointing, ridiculously intoxicating, yet gutless. Stick to the Bond films where everything is real, the coma cop-out just doesn't cut where the 007 I know comes from.
8/10
Very intriguing
MAYESY-4414 June 2020
I think this is quite different to other bonds in that there is significantly less action and a greater build up in the story. Very different but very good.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Finally a refreshing bond film
Scourgeofomnius4 December 2006
I don't know about most of you but I got tired of seeing the same old bond films. Gadget here, Gadget there, Explosion here, Explosion there, No plausible plot, and reliance on flashy special effects.

OK bond is blonde, I can deal with that, it even rhymes. Daniel Craig does an outstanding job like I suspected. He manages a bond that is a lot closer to Ian Flemings vision(in my opinion.)

For once the movie didn't try to keep my attention with a lot of cinematic tricks, it actually managed without them. Hardly any corny one-liners, although there were some.

My only complaints, the poker game was a bit long winded, but I guess I should have expected that reading the title. The villain was a little week too, I don't think I would be scared of him. They could have left the whole weeping blood thing out, besides I think he had enough money to fix a slight medical problem that wouldn't be conducive to a good poker game.

Anyone who is looking for a fresh bond prospective should see this film. I think you will find it entertaining. If you are looking for the same old bond I am afraid you will be disappointed, but please don't give it a bad rating just because it wasn't what you envisioned. It really was an excellent film. I am sad so many people are upset that it wasn't the same film they had seen before. I usually like new directions in films, it tends to keep them from getting boring.
9/10
Eight star movie. One star bond movie.
Longest_Lasting_Redshirt9 December 2007
If you are not familiar with bond movies chances are you will love this. This is a great movie. All that actors are great. The plot (though hard to follow) is good. Every scene is well done. The trouble is that I didn't like it because it is not the 007 style. 007 is supposed to be straightforward plot, damsels in distress, psycho villains, Awesome henchmen, and other things this movie didn't have. They tried to make James Bond, who is supposed to be a one dimensional minimum character development (Not saying thats bad), ladies man and turned him into a developed, non B-movie character he is. The Plot is WAY to confusing for a bond film. Their is not a clear villain or bond girl.If 007 came to be in the cold war, than why does his first mission happen in July 2006 (wow I thought we were done in 1990.) I am not against character development, confusing plots, unclear villains, and all other things (if I was I wouldn't hate "Family Guy" but I am for B-Movie's such as 007.

This is a great movie on its own, but a bad James Bond movie. While an improvement over Die Another Day (it sucked) this is bad for bond. They need to get back on track and follow the formula we have come to know and love. As the title says Great movie. Pathetic bond movie.
8/10
Nice Change of Pace for the Series
aimless-4615 December 2006
It is appropriate that "Casino Royale", the first of the James Bond books (1953), would also be the first James Bond film to get a makeover. The original 1967 film was not just the black sheep of the series, but a bizarre departure from pretty much everything the franchise stood for. Which made it the best candidate for a remake which itself drastically breaks away from many Bond film conventions.

The new "Casino Royale" represents a welcome invigoration of a series at a crossroads where it either had to reinvent itself or retire. As the least elaborate and most basic of Ian Fleming's series, the story adapts well to a gritty no-nonsense treatment. Basically it is the origin story of 007 and Daniel Craig, doing a reprise of his performance in "Layer Cake", steps in as the new (and the most like Fleming's original) Bond. He is more out-of-control dashing than suave and sophisticated. While the young James Bond immature and overconfident, he comes by these traits honestly being both a competent and a maladjusted young man. Which means a mean streak and a soft side unlike any Bond before him.

Unlike the sound stage sets of the original "Casino Royale", the remake makes extensive use of exotic location shooting. The events in the films and the book center around a high stakes game (Texas hold-em poker here-baccarat in the others) as the villain Le Chiffre attempts to add funds to his agency's treasury at the gaming tables (the present day setting of the film requires the insertion of terrorist connections).

For longtime fans of the franchise, Casino Royale offers some retro kicks. The film nicely blends virtuoso action sequences with sexy romance; and throws in a torture sequence more in the tradition of "The Ipcress Files" than "Goldfinger.

This is serious stuff, not the self-parody and cartoonish antics which had begun to dominate the productions even before the Brosnan era. At first the new direction might seem a considerable gamble, but while there was no guarantee of success the producers had little to lose except production costs because the franchise was so close to fading away. Something rugged and unconventional was needed and that is exactly what the new "Casino Royale" delivers. The gritty opening scenes (featuring desaturated images) flashback to Bond as he is earning his 007 designation with brutal assassinations in a public bathroom and office. No silly gadgets (at least not really silly) or "Man From UNCLE" quips. There is a gray Aston Martin and the best car chase in Bond film history.

The new Le Chiffre is no Orsen Welles; and must rely on a bleeding non-functional eye for his creepiness. The interplay between Bond and Vesper Lynds (Eva Green) works quite well.

The writing team of Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis provide a particularly nice script and it is fair to say that this version of "Casino Royale" ranks up there with the best of the series.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
10/10
The perfect Bond film...
Chalice_Of_Evil25 December 2006
Quite a claim to make, I know, but believe the hype. This film actually lives up to it. I never had a problem with Daniel Craig being cast as Bond. I imagine a lot of those naysayers are eating their words now. Craig brings a physicality to the role that other Bonds have lacked (the parkour scene is a stand-out that not only shows Bond's endurance, but his bluntness. See a wall? Don't go around it, go *through* it!), and rather than constantly quipping, his facial expressions say everything that needs to be said (like at the climax of an airport chase scene). That's not to say he isn't without a sense of humour. He has one, it's just less obvious. This Bond can be cold, calculating and often several steps ahead of most everyone else, though he's by no means 'infallible' and learns humility on more than one occasion. It's not just 'edginess' Craig brings to the role, but also a side of Bond we've rarely seen before: emotional vulnerability. While in previous films he's rarely had true feelings for the many women he's slept with, in this film he *does* actually find someone who allows him to open up...and in so doing, learns a hard/valuable lesson in the process. Since this is a 'reboot' of sorts, we're seeing not only how Bond gets his double-0 status (via a memorable opening scene shot in black&white) but also how he becomes the closed-off, emotionally distant, user-of-women we're familiar with. By the end of the film (where the traditional Bond theme is used to great effect), he is finally the Bond that we all know.

The most important relationship in this movie is between Bond and Vesper Lynd (played to perfection by Eva Green). She's easily one of the *best* Bond girls to date (if not THE best). Craig and Green's chemistry is off-the-charts from their very first encounter (which is important/necessary, given the direction the story goes). Vesper is no pushover or dimwit, she's a complex/intelligent character with lots of depth and is more than a match when it comes to dealing with Bond and his ego. She's not a fighter, but still helps him out. The two share a shower scene (after a brutal stairway fight) that is probably the most deep/meaningful scene we've gotten in a Bond film. This movie does an excellent job of allowing the emotional beats to play out/not feel rushed so we're not just jumping from action scene to action scene. Craig and Green cannot be praised enough for how well they work together onscreen, which makes what comes at the end of the film all the more effective. Vesper Lynd, for me, is the perfect Bond Girl and the one I compare all others to.

Someone else who has a great dynamic with Craig's Bond is Judi Dench's M. They share a number of memorable scenes/exchanges, and as hard as she may be on him, it's clear that she *does* care about him. Mads Mikkelsen is effective as the villain, Le Chiffre (though he really should've seen someone about that weeping blood problem). He mightn't be as 'flashy' or maniacal as 'classic' Bond villains, but that's what makes him scary. He's got a quiet menace about him and only really lets loose his fury during a torture scene with Bond late into the film that is far superior to some of the more elaborate torture scenes we've seen previously, as it's not about blood/elaborate traps, but instead something as simple as a rope with a knot at the end of it, a naked Bond and a bottomless chair. It's yet another classic scene in a film FILLED with classic scenes. There are other supporting characters in the film who mightn't get as much to do as the ones already mentioned, but all the actors (no matter how 'small' the role they play) have been well-cast and make the most of their screentime including Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter and various villains Bond contends with.

You want realistic, bloody, dirty fight scenes involving Bond? This film has that in spades. The fights in this movie look real/like they actually *hurt* and we see the toll they take on Bond. There are numerous action set-pieces throughout, every one different but memorable. The stunts are spectacular, but at the same time they don't go overboard like the last Pierce Brosnan outing. The director, Martin Campbell, proved with GoldenEye that he knows how to make not only a great debut film for a new actor cast as Bond, but also just an all-around awesome film, period. WHY hasn't he been asked to direct *more* Bond films when he's clearly the perfect man for the job? The way he directs ensures that nothing is ever confusing, all the important details are present and the action can actually be *followed* rather than disorientating. No matter who takes over from Craig, they should bring Campbell back to direct, as he's now made my Top 2 favourite Bond films (this and GoldenEye).

I wasn't familiar with Chris Cornell before hearing his theme song for this movie ('You Know My Name') on the radio, but it instantly grabbed me. It's even better when you hear it playing over the visually-stunning opening credits sequence. The simplistic-looking silhouettes and the four different suits of the cards (hearts/spades/clubs/diamonds) being incorporated into the main titles (along with quick reveals of both Craig's and Green's faces at different points) make these opening titles the most imaginative and visually-exciting I've ever seen. Not to mention the gun barrel sequence FINALLY shows us who is shooting at/getting shot by Bond. There are some who refuse to let the Bond films of old go and wish to remain firmly stuck in the past, but this movie shows that Bond can very much be set in the modern age whilst still maintaining everything that makes him *Bond*. Yes, some things are different, but the spirit of Ian Fleming's character is still there.
5/10
Decent Bond film, but far from the best
westernbuff11 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've seen all the Bonds, having seen OHMSS just recently. I find that most of Connery's Bonds (excluding Dr. No and Diamonds Are Forever) are awesome and the others in the series are hit or miss. This Bond in my opinion is not the best or worst (best is From Russia With Love and the worst is Die Another Day).

Anyone who has read the book Casino Royale probably won't criticize much, as it stays true to the book for the most part. Of course there are a few minor and major differences in the movie, like M. being a woman, Vesper dies much differently, Mathis as a double agent and the car (from a Bentley in the book to a Ford in the movie). Craig is good, quite good (he is cold as it is meant to be) but certainly not the best (its near impossible to top Connery's performances). People who want wit or charm or pure chauvinist need to watch Moore's Bond films. This film is not supposed to be funny. There are not supposed to be gadgets. Bond did not get OO-status by using a jetpack, or giving people hugs and wet kisses! If one would have read the book one would know this. Musical score is quite good I think. It reflects Bonds' feelings, mindset etc very well.

What I didn't like: The ending was too long, and the whole movie was too long. Anything much over 2 hrs. is too long for a Bond movie. They turned Mathis into a double agent....Hasn't that been done enough in the film series? Bring MoneyPenny back please. The "new Q" I can live without. He was not missed in this one. They should cast someone else if they ever plan to bring him back. Finally, Judi Dench as M. is ruining this series! How long is this going to continue? Ian Fleming would be ashamed!!! It may be for the changing times but since when have the Bond producers ever cared about discrimination? There is course humor, half clothed women, etc. in all the films and that hasn't changed. Anyway....

I would rate it in the middle of the pack overall. Best Bond since Goldeneye (I know, I know, that isn't saying much). The next one looks really weak, so if you didn't like this one, good luck!
10/10
The Best Bond Film
pyxis_0323 November 2006
I grew up on the Bond series since my parent's first date was to a Bond movie. I love them, and probably have seen all of them more than once (especially the Connery Bonds since my mom had a sweet spot for him), but I found that this one if by far the best Bond I have ever seen. It had more heart, a more natural characteristic to it and was about the ability of bond, not his toys. Some very cool tricks to be awed by, first action scene in particular. Daniel Craig handled himself very well in the role and I guarantee that any one who goes to see this one will not be disappointed. action scenes are amazingly well put together and there is no question about the special effects (which are minimal). The wit alone would be a reason to see this film...very much a raw talent that Craig delivers in flawless time. It has heart, action, charisma, charm, and a repertoire that left my twenty year old room mates wishing they could be like Bond.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Martin Campbell brings us a satisfying reboot; this is how Bond is meant to be seen.
spiden19 May 2009
Bond movies are at the core of the action film genre. Not only is this series the most financially successful of all time, but the films appeal to nearly every generation. Make no mistake, though; Casino Royale abandons the cheesy and light-hearted demeanor of its predecessors and instead focuses on an in-depth analysis of Bond's beginnings... including one hell of a poker game.

This installment begins with a summing-up of Bond's first two kills to achieve his "00" status. Here, we begin to realize that Bond will be displayed as a far more vulnerable and deep character. At the helm of the most difficult role in 007 history is Daniel Craig, who proves that he is a formidable addition to the cavalcade of actors chosen for Bond. It soon becomes apparent that we'll be seeing more of him in the series. Eva Green is introduced as Vesper Lynd. This is interesting. If you watch this movie expecting a beautiful broad with a name you can't say twice on television, you're only partially correct. Vesper features an individualism only seen in such roles as Honor Blackman's Pussy Galore, and "Agent Triple X" in the Spy Who Loved Me. Bond succumbs to Lynd's beauty and impeccable character which has faint reminders of... Bond himself. They ultimately fall in love when Lynd has "stripped Bond of his armor." Without spoiling anything, I'll just say that the result from this relationship is the Bond we've all come to know and love over the 50+ years since his initial birth in Ian Fleming's legendary series.

Aside from our leads, Mads Mikkelson gives a great performance as the lead villain, Le Chiffre. This particular megalomaniacal genius has an unfailing ability to calculate the odds in a poker match, and--thank God--he's physically deformed! Le Chiffre has a scar over his eye (reminds me of Donald Pleasance's Blofeld) and weeps blood. Judi Dench returns to the role of M. A feature of this reboot is the development in Bond and his superior's relationship, which is one of the many differences from Bernard Lee's character.

Casino Royale has small and satisfying reminders of Bonds long past; such as the gun barrel intro, the best opening credit sequence since "Live and Let Die," 007's famous "Bond, James Bond" line, Felix Lester (Jeffrey Wright is excellent here), and a couple of snappy comebacks.

It's almost insulting to call this and action movie. In the action genre we see henchmen firing machine guns at the hero/heroine when no bullet actually hits, and features melodramatic acting with a terrible script. Casino Royale is the polar opposite.

I've fallen for every aspect of Casino Royale. A must see for every Bond fan, I give it a well-deserved 9/10.
1/10
Casino Royale.....Save your money on this Bond film.
bkubichka19 November 2006
They gutted and castrated the Bond genre with this film.

Save your money and see a real Bond movie on DVD! This movie, this Bond, and these characters are losers. Thank goodness they cut out most of the inane quips and toned down the cartoon-like characters in this Bond movie...it's the only saving grace for this movie!

Sexy, not!

Passionate,not!

Great Villains, not!

Femme Fatales, not!

I'll take Colin Farrell and a Mojito any day over saggy, craggy, dour, sour Daniel Craig.

A truly sad day for the Bond legacy!
10/10
An absolute MUST for all 007 Fans...
brando64712 November 2008
I have been a fan of the 007 films for a while and I've seen all but two of the films in the series, so when this film was released and appeared to differ pretty drastically from what I was used to I was a bit leery. I couldn't have more wrong, as this is easily my favorite Bond film to date. The studio has given James Bond a reboot, starting the series fresh with a new actor and new tone. The movie starts with Bond receiving his 00-status within MI6 and begins with his first mission as 007. The short version: He has been assigned to a case in which a man known only as Le Chiffre is partaking in a poker tournament in an effort to fund terrorist acts.

Of course, that is a major understatement of the plot, as it is MUCH more complex. While most previous Bond film story lines could've been summed up in one sentence (i.e. evil organization/madman attempts to start World War III), this film's plot is complex and keeps you wondering to the end as to who can be trusted. There were some aspects I missed on my first viewing that were made clear the second time around. In addition to the great storytelling, we also get some of the best brutal action scenes from any Bond film. The fist-fights are brutal and the action never goes over-the-top, as it has in the past. We also don't have any of the signature gadgets that Bond fans have become accustomed to (with the exception of some additions to Bond's new Aston Martin). While this all leads to a completely different feel than any of the previous films, I loved it! It is grounded in reality without the campiness that has come to be expected; it seems to have more in common with the Bourne films than the previous Bond films.

When I had heard Daniel Craig was to assume the role of Bond in this film, I was not one of the nay-sayers. I had seen him in "Layer Cake" and thought he was a perfectly viable option. I was right, because he was fantastic. He was grittier but managed to keep up Bond's usual suave demeanor with a hint of humor. Eva Green is Vesper Lynd, the film's "Bond Girl", an agent of the British Treasury sent along to fund Bond's mission in the tournament. She easily qualifies as one of my favorite Bond Girls, both beautiful and talented. The film was also backed with a fine supporting cast as well (Giancarlo Giannini, Mads Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Wright, and, of course, Judi Dench).

This film gave the Bond franchise a refreshing reboot that has probably saved it from degenerating into camp-inspired doom. Craig proves himself as a more-than-capable Bond and the film is grounded/realistic for the first time in years. While the movie is longer than most Bond films, it is entertaining throughout and leaves you craving the sequel by the end.
7/10
Great actor!
zacks-matsen23 March 2012
What a difference a great actor makes. Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond and parting from that point everything in it is enjoyable, frightening, thrilling just because we're with him. He conquered us from the word go. The initial chase is one of the best in film history and as soon as we get to know this new incarnation of the iconic Ian Fleming character, we're hooked. He's virile but there is room for ambiguity. He's elegant but as, the sensational Eva Green, points out is more acquired than inherited. More working class than even Sean Connery and that works wonders for Mr Bond. The script is more compact and organic. The locations are breathtaking and what else I can say? The series have been reinvigorated, rejuvenated and in one single stroke have secured that this franchise will live forever. A note to Barbara Broccoli, the producer, your father would be so proud. Congratulations!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Absolutely Brilliant
philip-prise-124 November 2006
First of all I'm not a huge Bond fan, i've seen all the movies and enjoy them as good old blockbuster fare.

This movie is different though, its a complete change of tone and style for the Bond movies, its harder, edgier, sexier and much more violent. Its Bond re-imagined for a whole new generation of movie goers and in that sense is every bit as revolutionary as Dr No all those years ago.

As for the lead role itself all I will say is those who campaigned for Daniel Craig to be axed from the role repent now for you were wrong. Craig IS James Bond there is not a second of screen time where your not convinced he is "THE MAN".

Role on Bond 22.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good movie!
munteanu-antonio2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you're one of those people in love with Inspector Gadget don't bother - stay home and watch Manga cartoons. If, however, you appreciate tongue-in-the-cheek humor, robust action and beautiful scenery, then watch this film - it's the only 007 movie that makes me wait for a sequel. I mean, come on - the Maseratti Daniel Craigs drives must be the first Bond mobile that capsizes (it might as well be just bad driving, lol). As you can probably tell, I'm not a James Bond fan... I found previous enactments to be too artificial and cartoonish. Well, that gives me even more credibility, as I am not biased in my opinion - Casino Royale is just a good movie. Period.
2/10
my day spoilt
ks_jersey11 May 2007
bond movie is a fantasy.. why try to make that into a more boring reality and spoil my day? i watch a bond movie................. and have watched every single one of em coz it gives a sense of thrill........................ maybe this was a good movie.. but an awful BOND movie. I do like change................but a positive change..batman beigns was different.............it was more serious..but still stuck to the basics..the car...the gadgets etc etc....why did they have to take all that off this movie!!?....i think i might have enjoyed it if this movie was named differently... no gadgets..very little cars...no hot women(at least put to use)...no bond ego..OK i know this is a prequel and shouldn't exist...but comeon....don't remove the essence of bond..thats why we loved the movies all this while...
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
bond's back!
sir_spongebob_fartypants24 November 2006
saw it today, loved it! If your a bond fan, please ignore all those who weren't willing to give the guy a chance in the 1st place, he's proved them all wrong! He's an excellent choice for a younger bond. He plays him with a darkness not seen since the Connery era, dark, bit ruthless but suave. If you want to know how good an actor he is, I recommend you watch a very good British gangster movie called layer Cake, he does a screen test of sorts for the bond role in it but is also very good! Great actor, great choice in my opinion.the movie form the opening credits is all go and the story's one of the best as it shows Bond in his early days and at his rawest emotionally and in his methods of dealing with his opponents.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Incredible Action and Characters
BadgerStorm434510 May 2020
Casino Royale is a great introduction into the new Bond films. It acts as an origin story for many elements that make James Bond who he is. The action is breathtaking in this movie, so are the aspects of suspense and dialogue. Characters in this movie are treated perfectly by the script and every action they do is true to their character. With an excellent story and amazing action, Casino Royale remains an impressive film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Disappointing
tessabusuttil24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very disappointing, when compared to previous James Bond Movies. It was better as in this James Bond is a lot tougher, however i felt that it was too much, there was way too much physical action and too little super out of this world stunts which is what a bond film usually includes. I was very upset that no fancy gadgets were used in this film. Also i feel that the Astin Martin is shown for a very short period and is instantly destroyed. Also there was way too much romance in the film. This James Bond is an excellent actor and i admire his hard work to produce this film, however although i feel that he was a good choice for the film, the scenes were a little too violent with a lot of body contact
10/10
fantastic
svetpop19 January 2022
The familiar story begins only at the last minute, when Craig, as a bond, traditionally introduces himself to the enemy, in an impeccably fitting "troika", a tie and a weapon in his hand. Looks great!

The authors obviously decided to radically change the design and color of the "bond" trademark, the old one began to get lost on the shelves, among other things. But in general, "casino royale" for bond is an analogy of "azazelle" for fandorin ... apparently, it became obvious that well, all the toys and tricks had already been used, and if bond did not have to try it on, it was a trail of the past, an imprint , which made him the current bond, a spiritual, so to speak, turning point. It was very melodramatic. But it's interesting to watch.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A breath of fresh air for action movies.
jack_face20 January 2012
Saw Casino Royale at a friend's house on DVD. We were chilling, asked me what movie I'd like to see out of the selection he had, told him the type of movies I like, Casino Royale came up, he convinced me I'd like it, so that's what we watched. Can't say I'm a Bond movie fan. He always wins, always gets the girl, never gets hurt, just not realistic to me. My friend said I wouldn't be disappointed with this movie and he was right. It's a very good action movie. A breath of fresh air actually because they don't really make many action flicks anymore. Yes, he got the girl but it made sense. Yes, he won in the end but almost died in the process. Yes, he lived despite all the conflict and fighting but he took a beating throughout the whole movie and it was believable to a greater extent than previous Bond movies. And they didn't even have to go Rated R with it. Amazing! It's a visual action feast with a good plot. You'll be fully engaged in this from start to finish because the action scenes are long. Highly entertaining and worth watching on a proper TV with proper sound if you can make that happen.

The plot flows over right into Quantum of Solace; the Bond movie compared to The Bourne Ultimatum. I don't know where these comparisons came from but it's all complete and total crap. The shaky camera during certain action and fight scenes is evident but that's where the similarities end. While Bourne Ultimatum is one of the better action flicks to ever come down the pike, Solace totally sucks. Don't know how that ball got dropped, especially since the story continues directly from the end of Casino with the same writers. Solace isn't worth the time or money. It reminds me more of the Bond style of movies that I hate and even reminds me of that totally unrealistic schlock-fest called Transporter 2. Stay away from Solace but opt in for Casino Royale. Solace gets a 4, Casino gets a solid 8.

Don't get me wrong. Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond. He's grimy, kills people, steals cars, picks pockets, blows things up, trespasses, disrespects corpses, breaks and enters, burgles, and the list goes on and on. He's more like a villain than a hero. But that's what makes his version of the character more believable than the others who are way too high and mighty British. Craig is more of a street version and that's what I like in my spies. I'm just hoping the next Bond flick doesn't follow Solace's suit. Meaning I hope the right director hops on board. You can't go wrong with Casino Royale. It's awesome.
10/10
I had forgotten what Bond should be
rich-46420 November 2006
When you hear "Bond", what word comes to mind? Suave? Sophisticated? Cool? Years of smarmy Bonds made me forget another word: rugged. This Bond is tough. And Daniel Craig's Bond is not just enjoyable, he's believable.

Over the years, here's what I had forgotten about Bond: 1. I forgot that the reason why Bond gets into such trouble is that he doesn't always see three steps ahead of everybody. Bond gets blindsided. Yet the more recent Bonds seemed very cerebral - quicker with a quip than on the draw.

2. I forgot that Bond doesn't plan, Bond reacts. This Bond is like a great football player who sees the field around him and finds the gaps. Previous Bonds were more like football coaches - planners more than players.

In many Bond movies, I wondered why the bad guy didn't quiver knowing that Bond was on the trail. With Daniel Craig's Bond, I figured it out: bad guys don't quiver because they *think* they can beat Bond; they see a flaw, a weakness ... but they underestimate his resolve and his resourcefulness.

This was not only a terrific movie - I feel I understand Bond in a way I didn't before. Even if you never understood why people liked Bond movies - or maybe ESPECIALLY if this is the case for you - see this movie.

I feel as if the franchise is starting all over again (which in a way, it is).
9/10
The best Bond movie ever
kinky_friedman24 November 2006
Casino Royale is the best Bond movie I've seen. Granted, I've yet to see a few fan favorites (including From Russia with Love and Thunderball, which are on Spike tonight), but this beats Goldfinger and probably even my favorite, Dr. No.

The direction and script, the two most important issues to me, are fantastic. Martin Campbell kicks his own GoldenEye's ass by a mile. The tone is dark and moody, the way the novel was written. There are no qualms of production quality or direction here. The poker scenes, fight scenes, and development scenes are flawless.

The script is almost perfect. It stays true to the novel, albeit modernized. For example, terrorists are now the enemies, not Russians, and the game at hand is poker, not baccarat. The only problem with the script is that there are some unnecessary scenes, which make it drag out in the middle, and part of the unnecessary problems include a pretty worthless Bond girl. It should also be noted that it's a whopping 150 minutes, which is time consuming. It does keep you entertained through and through, but the first half hour to hour are really inessential to the story.

The action scenes, which is why most people like 007, are fantastic. They are few of them, proportionally, however. The first action scene is Bond chasing an African bomb maker, and includes some far-fetched stunts. However, these stunts are believable by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan standards. There is also a car chase on an air-strip, and a two-on-Bond stairwell duel. The last action scene, in Venice, is both heart-breaking and action-packed. But all these scenes are great.

Not only is Casino Royale a fantastic Bond movie, it's an equally cool poker movie. In case you've been living under a rock and haven't seen any marketing for this movie, you know the story. Bond has to outplay La Chiffre, a French poker expert who supplies bad guys money he wins from Poker games. If he loses- which no one expects he ever will- the people he owes money will kill him, which will disrupt the cash flow of all terrorists organizations.

When I heard they were adapting Casino Royale, I expected an enormous movie with the most luxurious casinos and exotic players. I expect cool poker scenes and high stakes. I got what I expected, which is rare for this era of disappointing films. La Chiffre is the master of poker, he even does cool tricks. Bond defeats him with style in which is possibly the most edge-of-your-seat poker game ever.

The cast is great. There are good actors, yes, but Bond isn't just about good acting. It is also about good-looking women and cool characters. Both the bond girls are hot (really hot) and the bad guy is bad. Le Chiffre is bad to the bone. Though he is not as stylized as previous villains (his power isn't too cool, he's a math expert), he is truly evil. He tortures Bond, and almost castrates him. You know he's evil when he cries blood. Daniel Craig is better than Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and George Lazenby easily, and is probably on par with Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan. He's down-to-earth, but cool at the same time. He's very human, but makes you feel inferior at the same time.

Go see this movie. It's got great directors, screenwriters, and actors. This is the best Bond yet. And it's in the top 250! Overall, I give this film an A+.
10/10
James Bond: The Reinvention
sanddragon9392 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An MI6 agent brutally kills an underworld contact in a washroom and shoots a corrupt MI6 section chief to death in his office in Prague. For these 2 assassinations, he is promoted to '00' status. And thus begins the legend of James Bond, 007, suave and sophisticated secret agent, 'licensed to kill'.

Casino Royale is significant in two ways. It is not only an adaptation of Ian Flemming's pivotal first novel, which introduced the James Bond character to the world, but it is also a reinvention of Bond for the 21st century. The Bond portrayed here by Daniel Craig is a darker, cynical version of Flemming's Cold War-era character updated for the present day. In this film, Bond is truly a complex character, a blunt instrument who is in reality a tortured soul. This film presents aspects of James Bond which were almost completely ignored in the previous 20 films but were touched upon subtly in some of the novels.

The plot is more or less faithfully adapted from the novel, albeit updated from its original 1953 settings. James Bond, on his first mission as 007, investigates an international organisation that funds terrorist groups. After successfully preventing a bombing, Bond gains the confidence of his MI6 chief, M, who assigns him to a new mission. Bond must face Le Chiffre, a banker and member of the mysterious organisation, at the card tables in a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. Bond must beat Le Chiffre at the game, render the man bankrupt, thereby forcing him to surrender to MI6.

Craig's brilliant portrayal of Bond is supplemented by an excellent cast of characters. Judi Dench reprises her role as M, the stern yet motherly MI6 head. Mads Mikellsen plays Le Chiffre, a man of few eccentricities, but of insurmountable menace. Carlo Giancii is Rene Mathis, Bond's MI6 contact in Montenegro. Jeffrey Wright is Felix Leiter, Bond's ally in the CIA. And finally, Eva Green plays the enigmatic Vesper Lynd, Treasury agent and Bond's love interest.

With such an incomparable cast, plot and tone, Casino Royale is undoubtedly one of the best Bond films too date, surpassed only perhaps by the classic 'From Russia with Love' with its ending leading into the first ever direct Bond sequel, 'Quantum of Solace'. Make no mistake. The new James Bond is here to stay.
7/10
Certainly over-hyped but still rather enjoyable
hall89517 August 2007
The relentless hype machine would have you believe that Daniel Craig is "The best Bond ever!" and that Casino Royale is the film that "saves the Bond franchise!" None of that may be particularly true. The Bond franchise may have needed a little tweaking and updating but it certainly didn't need to be saved. And while Craig is very good in the role can we let him do more than one of these before we dismiss all who came before? But once you get past all the breathless hype you do have a very good film.

Casino Royale is, at least compared with the slew of films which preceded it, a serious James Bond movie, if there can be such a thing. Many of the Bond films have been overly campy and at times ridiculously over the top. Not here. This is a much more grounded film and the new tone works wonderfully. This movie actually seems believable. Even the action scenes, which in many Bond films were ludicrously impossible, ring true. You get the sense that this stuff could actually happen which is refreshing. And happily, the film is less about action and more about plot, about engaging characters and the dramatic situations they find themselves in. Yes, this Bond film goes in a different direction and it pays off.

Now, for all the positives this is certainly not a perfect film. It definitely drags at times and probably would have benefited from some scenes being left on the cutting room floor. A poker game that takes up a rather healthy chunk of the film's running time is certainly vital to the plot but definitely slows things down. But, as a whole, the film works. The film certainly looks terrific with the visuals as stunning as you would expect from the Bond franchise. The key roles are all performed well. Craig may not be the best Bond ever, at least not yet, but he is certainly very good, entirely believable in all aspects of the role. As always, this Bond movie comes with plenty of villains but Mads Mikkelsen is the key bad guy and his performance is terrific. Appropriately menacing and much more believable than many prior Bond villains. As the requisite Bond girl, Eva Green may not be quite as good here as Craig and Mikkelsen but she holds her own. You get the sense Green and Craig could have had a little better chemistry but it's a minor quibble. In the end, everything comes together rather nicely. The story, while a little slow moving at times, does hold your attention and ultimately goes off in some surprising directions. Add in the fine acting performances, the great visuals, some riveting action and you have a film that's definitely worth your while. Maybe not an all-time classic but a very good film which makes you anxious to see where Bond goes from here.
3/10
Fake Bond in Cinema Shock!
heywoodwest19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As an avid James Bond film viewer, I always look forward to a new Bond to see what a different face will bring to the role. This time how ever I watched a movie that had all of the traditional elements stripped out with nothing put in their place. Okay, maybe I exaggerate a little, there was the occasional wry comment from Daniel Craig, but my wife and I left the cinema very disappointed.

I think my main problem was that I couldn't warm to Craig's character. Bond was portrayed as mean, nasty and small. By the torture scene I was so indifferent to the person on the screen that I really didn't care about the long term effects it might have on his love-life. Then again, I didn't really empathise with Eva Green's character either who seemed to switch allegiances on a whim, then die for her man.

As to the film being an attempt to outdo the Bourne films, they're going to have to try a lot harder than this. In the Bourne films I was rooting for Jason from the first few frames, but in this overlong travesty of James Bond I was left unimpressed and bored for much of the 144 minute running time.

If James Bond isn't special then he isn't Bond.
10/10
Doesn't Feel Like A Bond Film (And That's A Good Thing)
zkonedog10 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The latter years of Pierce Brosnan's run as James Bond were not kind to the character. As had happened to all other Bonds before him, the films turned into simply hitting the formulaic notes (gadgets, girls, chase scene, catch phrases, etc.) and very little else. The franchise was in desperate need of a "kick in the pants", of sorts. It got it in a big way with "Casino Royale".

For a very basic overview, "Casino Royale" pushes the reset button, showing a newly-minted 007 (Daniel Craig) on his first assignment from M (Judi Dench). In trying to expose terrorist banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), Bond meets up with Felix (Jeffrey Wright) and falls for the beautiful Vesper (Eva Green).

Director Martin Campbell, who also helmed "Goldeneye" for this franchise, shows remarkable restraint in crafting "Casino Royale". There's no Q dispensing gadgets. No Moneypenny. No "shaken, not stirred". In many ways, this feels more like a fresh action/adventure spy thriller than it does the umpteenth installment of a long-running franchise--which is exactly what the series needed at that time. It shifted the focus back on creating at least a semi-coherent plot and engaging characters.

Yet, at the same time, this is a Bond flick, and the nods to that legacy are tantalizingly perfect. Instead of being overt and flaunting such material, a much more subtle tone is taken. Craig's Bond is taken aback by his new "fitted dinner jacket", doesn't quite know how he wants his martini, and actually falls for a woman rather than using/objectifying her. Bond fails more than he succeeds mission-wise and is far from the cocksure spy we've come to know and love. This is all great material to play with and is acted/written/directed nearly perfectly.

Rest assured, there are still shiny cars, beautiful people, and plenty of chase scenes in "Casino Royale" too. But clearly the focus is on developing the roots of the character, and that makes this my favorite Bond film of all-time. When the music (finally) swells into the Bond theme and Craig utters the famous "Bond--James Bond" line right at the end, it puts the perfect capper on the franchise re-invention.
7/10
Pretty Good....
kenpo197024 November 2006
First off let me just say that I wasn't one of the "haters" that questioned Daniel Craig's casting as James Bond. I actually like Daniel Craig and even though I would have to say that I still consider Connery and Brosnan the two best Bonds Craig and Timothy Dalton are probably the two best actors to play Bond. If anything I guess I was a little baffled as to why Brosnan was pushed out of this role when he probably had at least a couple films left in him and his last Bond film was extremely successful. With all the said I went into this film with a very open mind and high expectations which were mostly met.

This film definitely hits the mark on many levels. This is by far the darkest Bond to ever grace the screen and I guess in many ways it seems more appropriate at this time in our history. The violence is probably the most realistic of any Bond film and we finally see a human Bond that if anything is pretty morally ambiguous. As a matter of fact I wasn't really sure I liked this guy. The action is good,although, some of it is a little bit unrealistic and seems to take away from this more realistic portrayal of Bond. The film, however, does fall short on a few levels.

As I said I like Daniel Craig but there did seem to be something missing here. I didn't mind the fact that he played Bond more edgy and even made the character hard to like at some points but I do feel there needs to be more charisma given off in the next film. I am not saying I want to see another Brosnan or Moore light hearted Bond but I do want someone that I at least kind of like. I just felt that we weren't really given enough of Bond's personality until, what I felt, was a forced and completely unbelievable transition at the end.

My final issue was that the film didn't end when it needed to which creates the above problem. I wont give anything away here but had the movie ended probably about 25 minutes earlier I would have definitely given it a higher mark. The last half an hour or so seems to stretch credibility and expects us to buy a complete change in Bond for very little reason. I kept expecting Bond to kind of give us a wink that he knew something we didn't but that didn't happen. Most of the audience in the showing I went to just weren't buying this.

Anyway, like I said above, this is a pretty good movie and I would definitely recommend seeing it in the theater. I am fairly certain that any short comings in this film have less to do with Craig and more to do with the direction and the writing. If this is tweaked just a little bit in the next film Craig could be playing Bond for the next ten years if he wants to.
8/10
Bond at its best
C22Man29 July 2015
Bond Review.

Title: Fleming's first Bond novel and straight to the point.

Pre-Titles: We see Bond acquire his double 0 status, firstly by brutally killing a contact in a bathroom and then killing an MI6 traitor named Dryden. This is a fantastic way to reintroduce the character and its great seeing how Bond got his licence to kill. It's very stylishly shot in black and white, with the bathroom fight being brilliantly vicious and the talk with Dryden is suitably intense.

Theme Song: Chris Cornell's 'You Know My Name' is a hard hitting, rocky effort that fits in perfectly. Its urgent melody and more aggressive stylings suit the tone of the film effortlessly, while Cornell's passionate vocals are excellent and even the lyrics are memorable.

Plot: Terrorist banker Le Chiffre takes part in a poker game in Montenegro in order to win back finances he lost. Bond is sent to participate in the game along with a treasury agent and prevent Le Chiffre from winning, while he quickly learns that he can't trust anyone. The storyline flows excellently, taken straight from the book and updated in the perfect way. What I really like is the amount of build-up without it being overlong. We see Bond in a variety of countries and doing a variety of assignments, so the main plot point is given weight and we feels its importance.

James Bond: Daniel Craig makes a near perfect debut here. He plays Bond here as aggressive and intelligent but somewhat edgy and vulnerable. None of these clash and Craig manages to form a very interesting character. He has plenty of charisma and is surprisingly effective in the lighter scenes. His only flaw is that he doesn't fit the traditional image.

Bond Girls: Eva Green does a wonderful job as Bond's partner Vesper. She has such a strong screen presence as ever emotion and expression feels so believable. She is attractive but not in the usual glamorous way which is nice and has very good chemistry with Craig. Caterina Murino does a solid job as Solange. Its short, but she plays an interesting part and is very convincing.

Villains: Mad Mikkelsen is great as Le Chiffre. He has an interesting look and a menacing presence but in a much more grounded way than usual. His motivations are believable and his dialogue is memorable without sounding too clichéd, while his rivalry with Bond is very enjoyable. Jesper Christensen does a good job as the mysterious Mr. White. We never know what his incentives are or who he works for and his appearances are always interesting.

Support: Judi Dench is excellent once again as M, as her chemistry with Craig is especially good and it feels like there is a genuine connection between the two. Giancarlo Giannini is brilliant as Bond's contact Mathis. He's a warm presence and his charming persona brings some much needed humour. Jeffrey Wright does a solid job as CIA man Felix Leiter.

Action: The action is fast-paced with a much needed vicious edge. The action feels real and that is where it succeeds. The parkour chase through a construction site is one of the best action scenes in the entire series, with incredible stunt work and a pounding intensity that doesn't let up. The fight at Miami airport is almost as good, again featuring a genuine tension that works so well. The stairwell fight is possibly the most brutal in the series and the famous torture scene is excellently done. The climax might seem a bit cluttered, but it is effective and shot very well.

Score: David Arnold offers another fantastic score. He doesn't change his work massively, but he adds some lovely subtle pieces for the slower scenes and many truly intense pieces for the action. He again succeeds in getting the balance just right.

Production Values: Like in GoldenEye, Martin Campbell does a great directing job because he knows where to keep the focus. He keeps it all simple and given the films tone that works to its advantage. With that said there are many memorable and beautiful shots throughout. The writing is superb. This is probably the most real a Bond film has ever been, all the characters are fleshed out, they have their own intricacies and the pressures of Bond's job is addressed a lot. It doesn't shy away from the truly brutal, but it remembers to add some humour and keep things entertaining. The stunt work is truly excellent, with most of it looking realistic and Craig himself handles the action very well. As stated the way the plot is built up is fantastic and as this is played as Bond's first major assignment it is fun to see him learn the trade. The locations are all wonderful and well varied, from the tropics of The Bahamas to the lovely architecture of Eastern Europe.

Conclusion: Casino Royale is a return to basics and arguably the best Bond film since the early Connery days. It has possibly the best balance of the series with plenty of action, well formed characters, smart dialogue, great locations and a gripping story whilst always being entertaining. Daniel Craig is the shining light and he absorbs all the most fascinating aspects of the character. Eva Green is one of the best female leads, Le Chiffre is a different kind of villain and the action is really effective. Martin Campbell breathed life into the series for a second time and it seems like every part was done to its best ability.
An extremely impressive debut for Daniel Craig
GusF20 July 2014
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The only Bond film that I saw in the cinema when it was first released, this is a magnificent return to form after "Die Another Day". While that film was, for all intents and purposes, a sci-fi film and an utterly dreadful one at that, this brings the series back down to Earth in much the same was as "For Your Eyes Only" did after "Moonraker". Daniel Craig makes an extremely impressive debut as the sixth James Bond. His newly promoted, inexperienced 007 is a cold, deeply flawed, troubled and, in some ways, quite vulnerable character. In that sense, he reminded me of Timothy Dalton's Bond, particularly in "The Living Daylights". While his Bond is harder than many of them, Craig is still every bit as charming and suave as his predecessors when the script demands it. He very effectively silenced the critics and fans who balked at his casting and labelled him "Bland, James Bland" before he had even filmed a scene.

The strongest main villain in many years, Mads Mikkelsen is excellent as LeChiffre, managing to be both menacing and charismatic in equal measure. Ruthless, arrogant and highly intelligent, he is a wonderful character and the Mikkelsen's performance conveys all of his rather unpleasant characteristics with a level of skill that makes it all seem effortless. He's the most believable main villain since Franz Sanchez in "Licence to Kill" and I loved the fact that, unlike most of his predecessors, he has to answer to someone and his life is put in serious danger by someone other than Bond. Eva Green is absolutely mesmering as Vesper Lynd and I think that you'd have to go back to Pussy Galore or Tracy di Vicenzo to find a better Bond girl. Her chemistry with Craig is electric and, while it was very good before that, the film truly takes off once she makes her first appearance on the Montenegro train and cuts Bond down to size. She is concerned about Bond's ego, with some justification, and refuses to become another notch on his bedpost, making both of these things clear to him in no uncertain terms. She is the strongest modern Bond girl and is in every sense Bond's equal but she seems like a real person. Retreating to the shower to metaphorically wash off the blood after the deaths of Steven Obanno and his accomplice is the most realistic reaction to death that I've ever seen in a thriller, not just a Bond film. As regards whether she genuinely loved Bond, I think that she did as she stopped wearing the necklace that her boyfriend gave her towards the end of the film. Saving Bond's life after he went into cardiac arrest, living her phone behind and ultimately sacrificing herself said a great deal about her character than betraying him. The scenes towards the end of the film which depict Bond and Vesper spending them together are the sweetest and most romantic sequences since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". If circumstances had been different, I think that they would have been very happy together.

As Desmond Llewelyn was the only actor reprise his role from a previous film in "GoldenEye", the same is true of Judi Dench as M in this film. While she always had very good chemistry with Pierce Brosnan, her chemistry with Craig is on another level. Most of her interactions with Bond are extremely tense and serve as one of the highlights of the film. However, I felt that her phone conversation with Bond towards the end indicated that she does have a certain fondness for him in spite of everything and her interaction with him in that scene had certain maternal undertones. Of the rest of the supporting cast, Giancarlo Giannini is the true standout. He is simply wonderful as René Mathis, playing with role with such style, charisma, intelligence and wit. I can't praise him enough. Jesper Christensen is extremely good as Mr White and, while I have liked if he had more screen time, it is fitting that he did not as it makes both him and his organisation appear more shadowy. Jeffrey Wright is very good as Felix Leiter, making his first appearance since "Licence to Kill", but likewise has too little screen time. Caterina Murino is suitably enchanting as the film's sacrificial lamb Solange Dimetrios while Simon Abkarian is suitably vile as her husband Alex Dimetrios. It was also nice to see Tom Chadbon, Malcolm Sinclair, Christina Cole and Crispin Bonham-Carter pop up in small roles.

The opening sequence is one of the most low-key but also one of the most effective and I loved its quasi-film noir vibe. Eschewing the heavy use of CGI seen in "Die Another Day", the action scenes are done the old fashioned way and the film is all the better for it. I thought that all of them were brilliantly done, particularly the crane sequence in Madagascar and the chase at Miami Airport. However, some of them could have been trimmed slightly as many of them go on for a tad too long. In spite of how important they are to the plot, I had similar concerns about the poker scenes. If you have never played poker and your limited understanding of it comes from watching "Star Trek: The Next Generation", this scenes can get a tad boring at times. I think that they could have cut a good 10 minutes from the film without it affecting the plot, if I'm honest.

In spite of those minor criticisms, I'm giving it a perfect score as this is an absolutely brilliant film which successfully updates Bond for the 21st Century while remaining true to the franchise's roots.
1/10
Worst bond ever
emissary18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It is rare I feel driven to comment on a film but this was so far away from a good Bond. I cannot stress enough this is the worst Bond ever. Imagine Bond with all the Bond taken out. The action figure will surely be sold in the Barbie isle available for all the girls to dress him up. Since when does Bond turn down the chance to sleep with a stunning woman, loose at cards, drink poison, have zero cool gadgets, have to rely on the mercy of the baddies etc etc. Since when was a Bond film so boring. I'm sorry but this could be the death of Bond the cool original film and the birth of pathetic generic drivel seen it all before Bond. At the end of the day Sony just paid for a really long advert. I expect you to be cool Mr Bond very cool not a cheese.
10/10
Best Bond in ages!
brettmajors_karaokeking27 November 2006
In all honesty, I thought Casino Royale was the best 007 movie since Roger Moore's A View To A Kill. While many felt that wasn't a great Bone outing, I thought it was terrific, especially with the great Christopher Walken as the villainous billionaire Max Zorin, and Tanya Roberts as the beautiful Stacy Sutton. Casino Royale had two beautiful women, an excellent plot (far better than any of the flicks after "For Your Eyes Only," and fighting scenes that would impress Steven Seagal. So there is a non-spoiler review of the film. Whether you are a Bond fan or not, this movie is enthralling and involves one of the most tense poker scenes in movie history. Highest rating. Craig is the right choice to play Bond and he proves it in this film.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How disgraceful this movie was to the Bond Storyline
soccerdude141 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
18 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. If you have then your in good shape.

Hmm... This movie must be judged by a taste in bond movies. For starters...following the current Bond storyline founed by Connery...ITS A DISGRACE!!! Their is absolutely NO sophistication in bond anymore. Craig is just a hard shell killing machine with no sophistication. Then of course we must examine the language. None of the previous bond movies used soo much cussing. I don't want to see a Bond movie where M has her period and starts screaming B**** and B******. And wait...getting exposed and put in the World News?!! IF this is the predecesor then hell..all the bad guys would know who he was. And lets look at those stunts in the beginning... First think about it...you got a black guy caring a BACKPACK with a BOMB in it, and he's doing stunts that Jackie Chan would have trouble doing. TOTAL BS. Then not to mention the 30 min of lax boring time in between action scenes. And OMG...the end of the movie mission that's suppose to be the climax...oh man its the best ever...a stupid game of poker...jeeze wow that sure beats scaling a 1000 foot cliff in ForYourEyesOnly and sure beats the flying death trap plane from DieAnotherDay. (sarcasm) And the one sacred rule of Bond movies...always some kind of vehicle chase that keeps you on the edge of your seat or has u laughing at the 3o bad guy cars flying off cliffs and exploding. Not in Casino Royale...OMG he gets into his car...drives for the grand total of 30 secs at like 300MPH and then flips his car like 50 times and totals it. WOW...sooo interesting...NOT! As you should now be aware, this movie was good on its own... but a disgrace to the BOND storyline. I know all people who have seen all the other bond movies (i've seen them all about 30 times) will agree with me. No Sophistication...No Car chase...Cheasy stunts...No charm...and tons of swearing...Also this was by far Judie Dench's worst showing.
8/10
One of the best action movies around
costashuber24 November 2006
This is a movie that has taken me by surprise. I had long lost my interest on Bond movies since they were too sci-fi for my tastes. I have been convinced by some friends to go to a theater and watch the movie and I admit that it is one of my best action movies in general. The hero here is vulnerable and human. It takes a beating and bleeds like a human. In the films from the past, especially with Moore and Brosnan, the central hero could kill 50 enemies and destroy a whole city without a scratch or wound. Also, the character of the hero here is warmer, with feelings and remorse. Mr. Craig is perfect for the role. He is a good actor and a "tough" guy without showing off. Eva Green is gorgeous, innocent and smart. The action scenes are realistic and there is more physical contact between Bond and his enemies than in older movies, where gadgets had the first role. I recommend this film to everyone who likes a very good quality action film and not only.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome
bevo-1367814 June 2020
Action packed. I like the bit where he jumps off the crane.
2 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome James bond 007 movie.
kyle-mcdonald14 July 2007
This another awesome James bond 007 movie and all for the same reasons it has lots of action in it and it has a good screen play for it Daniel Craig does a great James bond 007 also this is Daniel Craig's first time playing James bond 007 and he does it great. It has good acting in it and the actors in it are good the villains in it are good. I'm sure you will not be disappointed with casino royale. I'm sure you will have fun watching it and you will watch it over and over again. Great adaption of casino royale. So make sure that you rent or buy casino royale because it is an awesome James bond 007 movie.

Overall score ********** out of **********

***** out of *****
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
SEE the MOVIE - READ the BOOK!
jw5226 November 2006
Most of the positive reviews for this movie on this site have shown considerable savvy as to just what the heck this movie is all about; perhaps the negative reviews should just be ignored. Yet as a long time fan of the novels of Ian Fleming, I got to say that the comments from those who didn't like this film because it lacks "gadgets"; or because it lacks "jokes"; or because it lacks "Miss Moneypenny"; or simply because it lacks any stick-of-wood prop-up like Roger Moore - These remarks leave me bewildered and a little angry. Since these reviewers can write, I must assume they're literate - haven't they actually read a book at least once in their lives? Well, if they ever decide to give that a try, I suggest they start with Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, "Casino Royale" (1953) - a James Bond story without "gadgets"; without cheap humor at the expense of its characters; without Miss Moneypenny; and with a world-weary British agent who happens to be very human and can actually get caught off-guard, and does.

And I am stunned that the reviewers of whom I write complain about the wicker-chair torture scene - which not only comes straight out of the novel, but which was so controversial at the time that it first attracted readers of suspense novels to the book, just to see what the hub-bub was about. Which of course made a small fortune for Fleming and his publishers. In other words, without this scene, no further novels; without the novels, no James Bond, no James Bond films, no, not even Roger Moore (who first achieved fame playing Lesliem Charteris' "The Saint", as re-written for TV to appeal to fans of - James Bond novels).

In other words, everything those who pan this film complain as "not James Bond" IS James Bond, and everything they lament as missing from a "James Bond" movie is the cheap cartoon invented to appeal to the gaudy, campy '60s - and not James Bond at all.

They complain, because this is a REAL James Bond movie, and not one of those gaudy, campy fakes Roger Moore starred in.

Oh, gosh - do I feel sorry for them? - NOT! This is a great dramatic, suspenseful espionage thriller - tough, realistic, and still a part of our time as much as it was that of Fleming's original novel; there are concerns that Fleming wrote about, which still concern us - the cold war is over, but MI5 is still the British Secret Service, and still capable of some pretty nasty business; Fleming's refinements to this reality remain in this movie, as well as refinements intended to appeal to mature viewers of any age.

Enjoyed it thoroughly, and watched it twice; hoping for more of the same in the future.
5/10
James Bourne
qormi26 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The formula for Bond movies has been abandoned. James Bond is now just another action hero who can run, jump, and beat up people. Gone is the sophisticated charm and womanizing of the old Bond. Gone is the confident, arrogant swagger you liked so much. It seems Daniel Craig is just another Timothy Dalton, only athletic. Dalton lacked the sophistication and confidence of Bond. Connery had it.Lazenby had it. Moore had it, and Brosnan had it. Craig and Dalton were both poor choices to play Bond. This movie is not the worst Bond film. Never Say Never Again holds that distinction. Dalton's two films were not so great, but he didn't write them. A few of Moore's films were real stinkers. At least this one tried for more realism. The torture scene was straight out of the 1953 novel by Ian Flemming. But there were no gadgets, except for a heart defibulator - and what that was doing in an Aston Martin, I'll never know. Could you imagine Q giving Sean Connery a heart defibulator?? Craig plays Bond with no personality - too businesslike; no fun. Too blah. And that Zoolander look...
10/10
Not a classic Bond film ? Thank God
xundarz23 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
SPOILER ALERT

Unless you are a serious James Bond fan you will love this film!

I see this movie has A LOT of bad reviews from angry Bond fans. They hate that the filmmakers have played around with their beloved classic James Bond and the gadgets and the girls etc.

I am 17 years old. As you can imagine I haven't watched all the other 20 movies except the ones with Pierce Brosnan. And I hated them! The stupid gadgets might have been cool back then but now days the audience is accustomed with state of the art technology and they would no longer be impressed. In fact they would have found a lot of reasons why that gadget should not work in the first place!

In my opinion this film is better than the others because: 1. No more stupid gadgets ( invisible car, laser watch etc) 2. Younger, stronger, better looking, colder James Bond played beautifully by Daniel Craig 3. No more stupid quotes after Bond kills someone. 4. Bond is no longer invulnerable to everything. 5. Some say that Craig over-played his role. But if you know anything about body language and psychology you would realize that is not true. Craig plays the ideal Bond character to perfection. 6. Bond is finally a bad ass and a gentleman at the same time.

How can you say you got bored during the poker game?!?! I loved how during the breaks between poker he would got beaten up so bad, almost killed only to come back to the poker table looking as good as ever. Or how he ordered the drink. Or how he got up from the table only to go and kiss the girl.

LOVED IT! 10/10
8/10
Back, bad and blond... the new Bond is better than ever!
james_norman198120 November 2006
In 1995 a relatively unknown Irish actor was cast to play a really very well known spy. The result was Goldeneye and that film represents, for me, one of the best Bond movies since the early Connery films. Sure Moore was good at the beginning, Dalton was perhaps the closest to the books and OHMSS had the best plot, but Goldeneye did something those films didn't: it reinvented Bond for the 90's (which was quite a big ask of the earlier films I admit), turning a sexist, out of date character into a modern action hero, albeit one who wasn't totally divorced from the shenanigans of his past: Brosnan still cracked hackneyed jokes in the middle of his numerous battles, emerged from explosions and firefights with nary a scratch or crease about his immaculately tailored person and treated women as a sort of temporary distraction. However, thanks to the Irishman's undeniable charm and good looks, combined with one of the best villains of recent memory, Goldeneye was both a success and a springboard for the resuscitation of the franchise. The film could have buried Bond, instead it spawned 3 pseudo-sequels that did increasingly well at the box office despite getting progressively worse.

That progression, most obviously in the hopeless Die Another Day, eventually lead down the inevitable road to self parody with Goldeneye's suave, sophisticated, lean and deadly Bond becoming the cheeky, winking, aged and creaking caricature of Die Another Day, a transition that most of the actors who play the character eventually end up undergoing - though Brosnan deserves a huge amount of credit for the way he sends this transformation up in the Matador. A change was needed and who better to do it than the man who'd 'just' reinvented the franchise - Martin Campbell.

With Goldeneye's director on board and scripting being polished by the double Oscar winner Paul Haggis the scene was set for a whole new look, but that required a whole new Bond. Brosnan was jettisoned, rather callously it must be said, and rumours about his replacement abounded. Clive Owen was everyone's favourite but he clearly had no interest in taking the part (his squirming when quizzed on the matter by Jonathon Ross some time ago was genuinely excruciating), while the role has always called for a talented unknown rather than an established thespian (hence no Ewan McGregor). In the end the producers made the courageous call of Daniel Craig who was, heavens forbid, BLOND! How could they?

Well, Craig was a truly excellent actor whose pre-Bond credits eclipse those of every other performer who has played the role bar none. Despite his melanin shortage he was perfect for the role and, despite all the media stories to the contrary, he fills Pierce's boots to bursting, adding a hardness, physicality and danger that the affable Brosnan often lacked. Complimenting this inspired choice for the main role is the movie's other great 'find.' Eva Green is another actor who has been plying her trade to excellent reviews over the past few years. Only 26, she appears considerably older and mature without losing an ounce of sexiness compared to the other, frankly underused Bond girls in this film. She handles her scenes, as well as her character's metamorphosis alongside that of Bond's, exquisitely and walks off with many of the films best lines, particularly when she is sparring with Craig.

Of the other actors we see considerably less and they suffer for it. Only Judi Dench, returning as M, gets much to do beyond the usual, her bantering with Bond being one of the highlights of the film for me, as is her transformation from irate headmistress to more maternal figure by the end of the movie. No one else really gets a look in, especially the other two Bond girls, one of whom barely even speaks! Mads Mikkelsen is forgettable as Le Chiffre, a character who not only has a facial disfigurement but requires a puff of his inhaler every time he moves, something that destroys any sense of danger he manfully tries to exude. All in all it is a waste as there are a couple of moments where his potential is darkly hinted at. Still, it was not to be.

That is because this is the film that defines Bond's origins. A full on Bond villain would distract from that, hence the muted Mikkelsen. Instead we see Craig do many extremely visceral and impressive stunts, none more so than in trying to track the incredible Sebastien Foucan during the excellent Parkour scenes early on. Unfortunately, the other action scenes, the Venetian conclusion aside, aren't as good, although they knock most of the efforts from all the previous films into a cocked hat. The emotional content is amped us as well, with the aforementioned Green matching Craig all the way, unlike any previous Bond girl, other than Diana Rigg, while one scene, between Mikkelsen and Craig towards the end, shows just how far Bond has evolved since Connery.

Concisely put: this is a Bond for the Bourne generation, where the darkness and yearning at the heart of a super-spy is of as much interest as his cavalier disregard for life and women. Like Bourne, this new Bond is hard but not indestructible and certainly not unmovable. Of course there are problems with Casino Royale. The theme song is bland as all hell while the standard Bond credits sequence is long overdue a place on the cutting room floor. It's overlong, with several near endings that one feels could've been better handled with a tighter script. Most of the secondary characters are completely undeveloped and the actual card game devoid of much sense of excitement. However, these are minor niggles and the new incarnation of Bond is a far more interesting character than those that have gone before and one who we will hopefully see much more of in the future instalments.
8/10
A great Bond film
PersianPlaya40813 July 2008
This bond flick is a definitely a step up from the Pierce Brosnan Bond films. And i mean all of them, this was a bit more atmospheric, well done by Mask of Zorro director Martin campbell. I liked Daniel Craig in the lead and feel he did justice to the bond character. I also liked Eva Green here a lot and thought this was one of the better written bond films. Overall i thought it had good cinematography from Phil Meheux and a well suited score by David Arnold. I recommend this film to any fans of suspense or the bond legacy. Well done casting to pick Craig for this role

IMDb rating: 8.0, My Rating: 9/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Nothing good about this movie..
ricardoliuzzi17 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i am sorry to disappoint those that might read this and haven't seen the movie, but its just not worth the money, time or effort. i have seen all bond movies at least 3 times, and beside the last movie of pierce brosnan this was the worse of them all! actually i and also my friends didn't like pierce brosnan portrayel of bond but daniel craig is worse. to serious like he is acting in the movie munich and not in an action thriller. yes daniel craig is a good actor, don't get me wrong, but he just wasn't a bond as we all got to know, maybe in the next movies he will improve.

about the movie, it was really a mess, horrible editing in my opinion, especially the end was messy and with many holes. another thing i didn't like was that it didn't remind me of any bond movie i have ever seen. 1) almost no beautiful girls, not the kind that anyone will remember. 2) no q Branch, no moneypenny. 3) almost no jokes, movie is to violent and to serious. 4) no brains used by bond, just fight after fight. 5) the game at the casino was long and boring, should have been edited. 6) almost no gadgets which are james bond's trade marks. 7) to many commericals in the movie, cars of the ford brand, stuff of sony like computers and many cel phones. 8) no proper bad guys, the bad guy in this movie is really lame, had almost no conflict with james bond, and is shown as a small time thief thats after 100 million dollars or so.

this movie is just not a bond movie, and not a clear action movie, i have no idea why a person should go and watch it, yes there are few nice scenes of action here and there but as a movie it just doesn't stick.

one last comment, i have a feeling that some or most of the people commenting here in favour of this movie are maybe from the movies PR, cause me and friends i saw the movie with all agreed that it wasn't a good movie, so really weird that some think it was, especially after all the FACTS i pointed. well there is one more option maybe they like some of the critics from the papers are just not intelligent enough to see through a bad movie. 2/10
10/10
best bond movie ever!
blacktuliip16 November 2006
i ve seen casino royale on the 14th in a very elegant premiere,what i liked the most is that it's nearly a realistic movie,the story makes sense, no super powers & it's surprisingly different from the other James bond movies & that what makes him the best.Daniel Craig is SO perfect for this role I've seen him fit in since i watched layer cake,he got some character & charisma personally i liked him way better than pierce brosnan. i can only tell u,it s a suspense,action,smart with a sense of humour dialog,attractive women,beautiful locations ,nice cars & a very chic agent bond:)

u can easily say WAOW!
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A more humanized James Bond
adudewhoiscool13 December 2006
Bond is back in "Casino Royale!" This twenty-first edition, or first depending on the way you look at it, brings James Bond back to the beginning, much like "Batman Begins." There will be zero comparisons to the ones before the Pierce Brosnan era, since this reviewer has only seen bits and pieces of the Bonds before "Goldeneye." The director, Martin Campbell, who was also the director of "Goldeneye," did an amazing job. It is much better then the last James Bond, "Die Another Day."

James Bond, soon after obtaining his 007 'license to kill' status, finds himself in the middle of an international incident when he kills an unarmed bomber on embassy grounds. Despite drawing the wrath of his superiors, Bond continues to track the known associates of the bomber. Bond's investigation leads him to Le Chiffre, a banker for international terrorists. Bond and the British Secret Service discover that Le Chiffre will be playing in a high stakes card game, Texas Hold 'Em, at Casino Royale. Bond decides to enter the game with millions on the line. Will James Bond's ego keep him from winning the game?

This is not your traditional James Bond. The obvious is the look of Bond, Bond has blonde hair, which may cause some unnecessary complaints, and Daniel Craig is not a very handsome Bond. The enjoyable aspect of Daniel Craig's bond was that he had a human element. He made mistakes and did not win every time. He never had to rely on silly over-the-top gadgets, like the invisible car in "Die Another Day," in fact he only relied on a gadget once in the movie. The most enjoyable aspect of "Casino Royale" was that this bond did not seem like a superhero. The problem with most of the Brosnan movies is that bond seemed less like a human being and more like a superhuman. If you need to watch a superhero, watch "Spiderman" or "X-Men."

The casting was great. Daniel Craig played a Bond who not only could be hurt physically but mentally too. Eva Green played the main Bond girl, named Vesper Lynd, who had excellent chemistry with Craig. It is better they went with someone less known, unlike the last two Bond movies, "Die Another Day" with Halle Berry and "The World Is Not Enough" with Denise Richards. Mads Mikkelsen, as the villain, Le Chiffre, had a more realistic agenda then the typical Bond villain, and that was more enjoyable because it was more real. Judi Dench is back as M and is always enjoyable in that role.

There cannot be a Bond movie without the action. What was really enjoyable about the action in "Casino Royale," which was something that has plagued that last couple Bonds, is that it did not really too much on CGI. Most of the action and the stunts looked realistic, which made it seem less like a realistic video game, unlike "Die Another Day." This movie did not rely on too much gadgets. The last couple of movies simply went overboard on the gadgets and it was better to see this movie use as little gadgets as Bond could. Unfortunately, there was a scene with a lot of obvious CGI, an action sequence in Madagascar, which would not seem out of place in the "Matrix" trilogy. Normally, CGI does not bother this reviewer but since the other action scenes were not as obvious, it bothered this reviewer more then it should have.

The end credits were great. The theme song, "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell, is amazing because it sets the gritty dark mood of the movie. "You Know My Name" is much better then Madonna's "Die Another Day." The opening graphics that feature poker cards is a nice change, might be the first time used differently, from the normal naked women silhouettes. After watching the whole movie, besides all of the characters, it did not seem like a James Bond movie.

There are some negatives though. First off, as mentioned earlier, there was one action scene in Madagascar, which was bothersome because normal people do not run and jump like that. Another complaint is the song, "You Know My Name," it is a good song but it is much better without the orchestra added. At 144 minutes, this movie was a little to long and dragged a little. It would have been better if they had trimmed about 10 to 15 minutes off from the run time. Besides those three negatives, this movie is almost flawless.

In conclusion, "Casino Royale" is a fun movie. It had flaws but every movie does. This movie is recommended to anybody who prefers a movie like "Bourne Identity," or a show like "24," to a movie like "XXX." This may not win any academy awards, but it is one of the more entertaining movies this winter. Bond is back and this time his name is Craig, Daniel Craig! See this before it leaves the theaters!
8/10
Welcome back Bond
anselmdaniel3 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This review contains spoilers.

Casino Royale is an action spy movie that premiered in 2006. The movie is directed by Martin Campbell and is based on the book Casino Royale by Ian Fleming. The movie stars Daniel Craig as James Bond. James Bond starts as an a MI6 agent that earns his license to kill. James Bond becomes involved in a high stakes poker game that a criminal organization uses to recouperate lost money.

Casino Royale is very much a movie that moves James Bond into the modern era. This movie is a departure from the older James Bond movies. There are no fancy gadgets from the Pierce Brosnan era of Bond. These are spies given the best equipment possible which are only networks equipment and a gun. This can seem like a disappointment to anyone that looked forward to interesting gadgets. Casino Royale makes up for this with much more electric action than its older movies. The movie feel more like the Bourne series rather than the older Bond movies. The movies simply have similar action scenes. The movie does have some returning features from the previous movies like Bond's preferences. This has some twists to them.

The casting choice of Daniel Craig, as Bond is mostly a good choice. It feels like Daniel Craig brings forth a more grounded Bond. I personally did not like this but it is fitting for the movie's plot. Bond is beginning his career as 007 here and the audience sees him vulnerable and fallible. I enjoyed watching Pierce Brosnan's bond partly due to the pulpiness of the series. Pierce has a more careless reaction as everything seemed to be easier to Brosnan's Bond. The portrayal of Bond by Daniel Craig felt much more like Jason Bourne than a suave spy. The movie at least has James Bond go through a journey that makes Daniel Craig's portrayal more authentic.

The action in this movie is incredibly well-done. The movie has well-shot action where the audience can follow every tense moment easily. The movie has many action moments that are well paced out by the movie. The movie also made poker seem more tense and thrilling than it should be. The action and tension did not feel contrived and the movie had good reasons for every action scene.

The story in this movie is different from other James Bond movies. The movie has a long-spanning story arc that does not end in this installment. The movie has a promise to continue the story arc that the cliffhanger conclusion in this movie has. Both Mr. White and Le Chifre have a good screen presence in the movie which pervades a sense of mystery. This made the move more engrossing to watch.

I would recommend 'Casino Royale.' The movie is a solid start to the new Bond series.

Grade: B
9/10
Bond Redeemed!
jdkraus26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The last few bonds were let downs. For sure I thought Bond was over with for good, but when this new bond was relased, it gave a new and refreshed look of Bond! First things first, the new Bond, Daniel Craig, was extremely good. he may be blonde and short, but he has the Bond charm, as well as the skill and talent. Furthermore, he's better than Roger Moore could have ever been, but still, Connery is the maker of Bond.

This Bond film follows the rise of Bond as becoming 007. This means that there's no gadgets or Q, and no Moneypenny. The action in this Bond though is more realistic with a lot of shootings and on-foot chases. There is one car chase, but you Bond fans shouldn't be disappoitned, for the action sequences are spectacular and eye-popping! I have to note though that this Bond is nothing like the 1953 book, for it is modern-day, not Cold War, and is action-packed, while the book is not so.

Like the book, it does follow Bond's first love Vesper Lynd, played very sensually by Eva Green, who is well suited for the role, follows her betrayal and traegdy.Then there's the villain Le Chiffre, (Mik Maddsen), whom Bond hunts down and encounters him during the famous card-playing scene of poker! This Bond was not only great for it's action, and the new guy, but also because it gives Bond a better and new look of realism and character; it also gives birth to how he forms into an alcoholic,gambler, womenizer, and action hero.

Unfortunately, the fun doesn't last forever, despite it's lack of speed in places, but it's for sure that there will be a sequel that pick up after this one.

Overall ***1/2 out of **** If you are a Bond fan, this is the Bond you have been waiting for!
8/10
casino Royale
u-321879 May 2020
This is a very different bond. Primitive violence and dedication. This is the spy.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The names bond ...no it isn't
crow_6218 November 2006
Sean Connery, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Pierce Brosnan and even Timothy Dalton must have bid fare well to an old an dear friend when this monstrosity of a film came to be.

The continuity is non existent, the score was an abysmal rehash of the world is not enough. The opening title sequences were dull and uninspired and worst of all...That so called actor took one of my childhood heroes and turned him into a second rate barely mediocre action character.

Daniel Craig has proved before that he lacks any kind of acting ability...see Munich and Elizabeth. He possesses neither the suave sophistication or the sardonic timing that is synonymous to Bond.

Do us all a favour and cast someone who can act next time.
4/10
Bit of a disappointment
sweedie713 December 2006
I fail to see why everybody's making such a big song and dance of this Bond film. OK, I agree that Daniel Craig is a better Bond than Pierce Brosnan and Timothy Dalton. And it's better than the last film. And I'm even willing to give them some credit for trying to reinvent the genre and trying to build the Bond character from scratch again by starting all over. But did none of the people involved in the production watch the film from beginning to end? It's totally disjointed and incredibly difficult to believe. I'm not trying to say that Bond films should be realistic, but it would be nice if we were able to believe that a spy could actually figure something in particular out from the clues that have been given. I just spent the entire film waiting for all the threads to be wrapped up and tied together. And then it was just over. I'm assuming that the questions left open will be answered in the next film, but that doesn't really work for me. It's a Bond film, we're expecting him to wrap things up nice and neatly and walk off into the sunset.

All that said, I will definitely go see the next one and hopefully Daniel Craig will be a little more comfortable in the role then and able to stamp his own personality on it.
2/10
Watch Poker on ESPN
rbrehf30 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not what I thought it was going to be. This movie had one of the most crazily awesome beginnings ever. That guy was flying around the city ( I know what he was doing is a sport in Franch or somewhere and is quite popular). Besides for the beginning the movie was not what I expected at all for a bond film. I consider myself a Bond fan and Bond was my role model when I was a kid. When I saw this movie I was down right disappointed. First, half the movie is about Poker and wasn't the least bit entertaining at all. Second, there didn't seem to be enough action in the movie to peek up my interests. One pro in the movie was the head villain with the cut eye. When ever something bad happened or when he got angry blood would come out around his eye where the scar was located. Which goes along with the unforgettable villains in the Bond series. The bond movies have always delivered a mean and unforgettable villain and for that I thank. The Bond in this movie ( Daniel Craig) may have been the buff-est bond ever but he didn't seem to completely fill the role of a secret agent. Please reply if you strongly disagree or agree with anything I have said.
A Bond to be reckoned with (spoilers)
Ricky_Roma__5 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's strange, but despite being an excellent 007, Pierce Brosnan only made one truly great Bond film – that being Goldeneye. The others were either mediocre (Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough) or downright dreadful (Die Another Day). Therefore the Bond producers had a mammoth task on their hands in order to rescue Bond, to move it away from the jokey, CGI-ridden mess of the last adventure and back to what made the franchise so enjoyable in the first place – cool action, sexy women and a ruthless hero.

Loud, obnoxious objections were made when Daniel Craig was cast as Bond (oh my god, he's blonde!), but he's long since proved his detractors wrong. His Bond is quiet, determined and ruthless. He's the complete opposite of Roger Moore, who you felt was more happy firing one liners and bedding bimbos than busting heads and blowing people away. Therefore Craig's Bond has more in common with Connery and Dalton, which can only be a good thing.

However, Casino Royale must be the first Bond film where 007 himself is the main piece of crumpet. Time after time we're confronted with Craig's bulging muscles. It's enough to remind you of 80s action films, where the men, much more so than the women, were the main object of longing. Indeed, in the marvellous torture scene, Le Chiffre even compliments Bond on his physique as he prepares to punish his privates. His dialogue is delivered with such admiration that I couldn't help but wonder if Le Chiffre was going to oil his pecs rather than beat him up.

But homoerotic or not, the scene, for once, shows Bond in real peril. And for once Bond actually gets the snot beaten out of him and doesn't escape the villain's clutches via some convenient gadget. But having said this, Bond does show remarkable fortitude for someone who's having his testicles smashed. He taunts the villain and laughs in his face. Ordinarily, this in itself would be laughable, but seeing as it's 007 you can't help but get a kick out of it. That's our boy – his gonads may be wrecked but he's still the man.

As well as being a tough Bond film, quite a bit has been written about 007 showing his softer side. For the most part, the scenes with Eva Green work well. The scene in the shower, for instance, where Bond comforts Vesper and sucks her fingers is very sexy. But some of the later scenes, where the two decide to run off to Venice, feel a little pap. They're never risible – mainly because Green and Craig have a lot of chemistry together – but they could have been improved. And their first encounter on the train is also a little lacklustre. Part of this is because Green, for all her style and charisma, never looks as if she's 100% comfortable in the part (sometimes she seems to be trying too hard), but it's also due to the writing. I mean, all the amateur psychoanalysis is incredibly heavy-handed and the stuff about Bond's watch is just plain awful. 'Rolex?' 'Omega.' 'Beautiful.' Ker-ching!

But aside from these minor complaints, the film works wonderfully. It's truly up there with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, From Russia With Love, Goldeneye and Licence to Kill as one of the best Bond films. In particular what I like is just how ruthless Bond is in this film. As much as I get a kick out of dear old Rog delivering one liners and judo chops, I prefer Bond to be a cold-blooded murderer. I want him to seem like a physical threat. I don't want him just to be a ladies man. Therefore I love seeing Craig strangle, drown and stab bad guys. And I like seeing him shoot people without batting an eyelid. In too many films these days we have the tortured hero; it's nice to just have someone who's unapologetically mean.

One of my favourite little Bond moments in this film is when he defeats a bad guy at poker and wins the man's Aston Martin. The casual way that Bond asks for the valet ticket is a joy to behold. As is the moment when a couple of fat German tourists mistake Bond for a hotel employee. Again, I love the casual way that he smashes their Range Rover and tosses their car keys. This is the Bond we've been waiting a long time to see; a Bond of action rather than groansome quips.

Not that there aren't some good lines in the film. There's a nice little bit of humour after Bond nearly has a heart attack. 'I'm sorry. That last hand. Nearly killed me.' And I love Bond's reaction to how he wants his Martini, shaken or stirred. 'Do I look like I give a damn?' You finally get the feeling that the series is shaking off the ghost of the past. It finally seems to be heading in a new direction.

Whether this new attitude is maintained, though, remains to be seen. After all, Goldeneye gave me false hope that the franchise was going to be reinvigorated and it quickly fell back into its old ways. But regardless of whether that happens, what we have here is a great Bond film. Or should I say, a great pre-Bond film, as it's only in the final scene that we finally see the true 007 – this movie is all about how he became. And the final moment, where Bond finally becomes Bond, is maybe the highlight of the movie. Let's hope it's not downhill from here.
8/10
Raw, visceral and disturbingly homo-erotic
blossom55922 December 2006
I finally saw the new Bond last night and was really surprised by it. I knew that they were refreshing the franchise, but hadn't expected such a raw and visceral version of Bond. The action scenes were breath-taking and totally Martin Campbell, but this time the producers really allowed him to express himself in all his perverse glory. Gone is the camp, humorous charm. This Bond is truly dangerous, mainly because he is not always cool or in control, and he can be hurt, very badly hurt. Daniel Craig's astonishing blue eyes flash and smoulder. This is a very physical Bond and the opportunity to show his very developed, glistening, often injured torso is rarely missed. There are disturbing sado-masochistic undertones to this film, never has a Bond been so viscerally mashed, which culminate in the homo-erotic torture scene, which frankly disturbed me. Exquisitely photographed by Phil Meheux, a still from this scene wouldn't have been out of place in a Robert Mablethorpe collection. Mads Mikkelsen gives a superbly subtle and effete performance as Le Chiffre, and Eva Green is utterly beguiling in her beautiful quirkiness. Only the brief love interlude feels clumsy, reverting to the tone of a rom-com in its sweetness. I would have have liked a bit more charm, but perhaps that's the next developmental step in Bond's evolution.
8/10
Kickstarts a new era of Bond movies in gritty, spectacular fashion
fertilecelluloid18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's get the bad out of the way first. The theme song for "Casino Royale" is one of the most unmemorable ever. It's just a bunch of noise and evokes nothing of Bond's dangerous, sexy and mysterious world.

The rest of the new Bond film is pretty damn spectacular. This is a reinvention of Bond that begins before he possessed his "00" status. The first post-credit action sequence is one of the giddiest foot chase sequences I have seen. It features Bond on the heels of Sebastien Foucan, one of the world's leading practitioners of Parkour (free running). For the first time that I can recall, I experienced mild vertigo while watching it and found myself wincing at the bone-crunching displays of athleticism. There is another superbly staged sequence on an airport runway that plunged me right into the action and took me back to when I was a kid watching "Diamonds Are Forever" at the cinema with my dad for the first time.

Daniel Craig's Bond is cocky, arrogant, flawed and brutal. He erases memories of the mamby-pamby Bonds such as Dalton, Moore and Brosnan, and redefines our perception of the superspy. We learn about his beginnings (he was an orphan) and we get to see him in several vulnerable positions. He's likable without trying too hard to be.

Judy Dench, as always, is fantastic as "M", and it was great to see her initially being one-upped by Bond, then slowly growing to respect his less-than-conventional modus operandi.

The Bond Girls are volcanic, with Eva Green making real impact as Bond's casino sidekick.

I was not bothered by the running time. I so enjoyed Craig as Bond that I didn't want it to end. Most impressive is the amped-up intensity of the action and the streamlining of Bond's technical world. Sure he still has access to some amazing technological support, but he's not an Inspector Gadget with fine English breeding given to occasional bouts of shirtlessness.

Director Martin Campbell and his huge crew deserve applause for kickstarting a new era of gritty James Bond movies. A toast!
10/10
"Royale" Wins the Pot
XFLRWF19 November 2006
"Bond. James Bond." The man behind the infamous quote returns to his roots in the latest 007 adventure, "Casino Royale." The film features Bond in his most raw form: edgier, wittier, and even colder than audiences have seen in the spy's previous adventures. Daniel Craig, the newest man to drive the Aston Martin, pulls off the role with expertise. His performance is true to the feel of the original novel and will have doubters quickly retracting their reservations. Craig is accompanied by a talented cast including Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, and the returning Judi Dench as M. Under the direction of Martin Campbell, "Casino Royale" is an explosive hit that will evoke the devotion from traditional Bond aficionados and bring on a new generation of fans.

Newly appointed Double-0 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is on a mission to track down a terrorist funding organization. His search leads him to a criminal mastermind and expert gambler named Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Le Chiffre is looking to increase his funds by playing in a high stakes Poker game. Aided by Treasury Agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), Bond is recruited to play against Le Chiffre and bankrupt the organization. Should he lose, however, he will have personally aided in financing terrorism.

As he did with "Goldeneye", former Bond director Martin Campbell returns to bring new life and new attitude to the franchise. He keeps a fast pacing of the film and manages to capture all the action without missing a beat. He is keen to show the audience Bond's close calls while also leaving other details to their collective imagination. But Campbell does not simply rely on explosions and car chases for excitement. This is best shown in the Poker game that Bond and Le Chiffre are involved in. With his brilliant camera style, Campbell captures the tenseness of the situation. Audiences will be able to imagine themselves not only inside the poker room but at the very table of the contest.

Also returning for another Bond run are screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade whom are joined by veteran writer/director Paul Haggis. A better trio could not have been chosen to tackle the challenge of adapting the first Ian Fleming novel of 007. They stay true to the basic and most important fundamentals of the book while also adapting plot elements for the modern audience, i.e., changing the card game from baccarat to poker. Being a prequel, the screenwriters are also aware to make James Bond at his most basic form. He is not the quite the man with infinite charm and sophistication and tackles situations more with his wits than with gadgetry.

After months of speculation and distrust among fans as to whether or not he would be a suitable Bond, Daniel Craig's performance silences those doubts. As Bond on his first mission, Craig is more cold, calculating, and even egotistical than audiences have seen. He will complete the task regardless of what rules he has to break or who must be sacrificed. Craig demonstrates this through his encounters with M on and off the job. Acting out Bond in the original stage, Craig walks the fine line between being charming and arrogant. On the one hand he could be buttering up a woman and then suddenly turn the tables to feed his own ego. Craig also displays plenty of the Bond wit and humor that fans have come to expect and enjoy. But again, one has to define whether it is being funny or being self-centered. Eva Green becomes the latest Bond girl with her role as Vesper Lynd. Typical of most Bond girls, Green is a good mix of beauty and the not-so-damsel-in-distress. An antithesis of her literary character, Green portrays Lynd as very headstrong and almost a female reflection to the young Bond. For every snide remark and quick quip, Green matches in return. But Green does not make Lynd as cold or uncaring as Bond. She does an excellent job is showing the emotional and mental strain that becomes involved with the field work. Mads Mikkelsen is a great persona of Le Chiffre. He always carries an aura of self-confidence on-screen that if Bond were a villain it would be Le Chiffre. Mikkelsen's portrayal is just as cold, manipulative, and egotistical as Craig makes Bond out to be. An added bonus from Mikkelsen is something that has not been seen in many Bond villains: fear. Mikkelsen is not the typical Bond villain who is out to rule the world for himself. Rather he is an employee playing with his employers' money. Mikkelsen shows this knowledge throughout the film and an understanding of the consequences should he fail. Judi Dench is more involved in her return as M. She shows the frustration of having to deal with the brash, young Bond but also an almost motherly compassion for the trials he has to go through. One can tell that she wants her latest recruit to succeed but is unsure if he has the stability for the job.

"Casino Royale" will most certainly entertain Bond fans and movie-goers alike. Daniel Craig's portrayal of 007 is a refreshing change to the smooth customer fans have become accustomed to and will reinvent 007 to a new legion of fans. The incredible cast combined with the brilliant direction of Martin Campbell and fantastic screen writing guarantees "Casino Royale" will down as one of the top Bond films of all time. Mr. Fleming, you would be proud.

Grade: A+
10/10
After watching Quantum of Solance, Skyfall and Spectre...
larsviebrock18 November 2015
... I realized what a Masterpiece Casino Royale was. I was never a big fan of 007. The Bond of my youth is Pierce Brosnan, and I can't say I like him too much. The movies were relatively cheesy, ludicrous and plain boring. When I watched this one here, I was 14 and didn't really realize what of an amazing movie I had just watched. I watched it again just yet, after watching Spectre, and was blazed by this movie. To make a long story short: This movie has it all. James Bond is a cool, modern Agent, with less finesse than his predecessors, but more power, action, tension and actual coolness. The movie was exciting, had great chasing scenes (especially the opening scene), great dialogue and great humor (Bond: Vodka Martina! Waiter: Shaken or stirred? Bond: Do I look like I give a damn)... For me, this was an impeccable movie experience. The movie has humor, action, a very cool poker match, the (IMO) best Bond girl of all time (Eva Green was great in that role!), a great bad guy (not the plain bad, "I just want to rule the world" bull crap.) Verdict: One of the best action movies of the past decade and for me the best Bond of all time.
10/10
Bond is back and better than ever!
missbettybetty24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have always been a huge fan of the bond franchise and I was thoroughly looking forward to the next installment of Bond and I can say with great satisfaction that I was not disappointed! This is a fantastic film! Like most people, when I heard that Daniel Craig was to be the next Bond I was scepticle. I knew he was a good actor but was he Bond? The answer without doubt is yes! He was perfect for the role. He has brought back the real Bond. People are saying that it is missing the one liners and cheesy lines, but I like that. This is the beginning of Bond, he is rough around the edges, cocky and makes mistakes, he has only just been made a 00. We see how the smooth , sophisticted Bond starts out and I loved every second of it! No matter what people say I really liked the opening theme tune at the beginning. It was catchy and modern. As for the Bond theme, I loved the fact it was right at the end. It brought a smile to my face as I was leaving the cinema. Awesome film! Ian Flemming would be proud that we have now got the Bond he wrote about. Bravo Daniel Craig!
8/10
A return to the heart of the Bond style
LazySod25 January 2007
Bond films. I've never been a great fan of them. I loved Dr. No and From Russia With Love, but after that it all went into a steep decline and I can't remember much of the last few I saw the past decade - none of them were impressing. But, I took the risk to go see Casino Royale in the cinema anyway, more by lack of anything else to see than by anything else, but still.

I am glad I did take that risk. For the first time in ages a Bond film is released that is a good nice watch with a lot of fast paced action but nothing too far fetched (although there are a few Mission Impossible like scenes in the beginning of the film). The film isn't completely Bond styled either - Moneypenny and Q aren't there and that feels somewhat strangely. M is there though and Judi Dench plays her with style. Craig does a very convincing bond.

The bulk of the film is chasing around, building tension and trying to throw a mask over the face of the person that is the actual master brain behind it all. It does that pretty well and with that it stays fun to watch until the very end of it.

8 out of 10 bad hands at a poker game
7/10
Good Reboot of the Bond Series
ThomasColquith7 June 2021
"Casino Royale" achieves what it set out to -- namely to reboot the Bond franchise after the last two mediocre Brosnan films. "Casino Royale" brings back the realism, intensity, and action of the earlier Bond films such as "From Russia with Love". The beginning and ending are especially good, but the middle of the film drags a bit.

Other highlights include Caterina Murino as Solange, who is beautiful and effective, becoming one of the most memorable of the fated Bond women. (Another would be Teri Hatcher in "Tomorrow Never Dies.")

On the down side, this film is probably a little too long, the premise for the plot is weak, and I thought Eva Green was miscast as Bond's love interest. She does not seem like the type of woman who would make Bond fall head over heels in love and retire.

In summary, "Casino Royale" is a good but not great Bond film. 7/10.
8/10
One of the best Bond
aheaven200510 April 2021
A mix between a Bond movie and a « sports » movie through the Poker tournament. Madd Mikkelsen plays one, if not the best villain of the franchise. Daniel Craig enters the role so strongly compared to the other successors of Sean Connery. A great Bond movie.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
An OK movie.
AndrePhilidor22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We enjoyed the movie but Daniel Craig is no Sean Connery. Sean was suave, urbane, witty, and had savoir faire enough for all the other would-be James Bonds. He had class and style.

Daniel Craig is gritty and adequate. We missed all the gadgets - they were preposterous but fun. The prolonged torture scene in this film was uncomfortable, unsettling, preposterous, and NOT fun. As a physician, I can tell you no man would remain conscious and capable of making jokes after repeated blows to where it hurts most. No man needs medical training to know what transpires is beyond belief. Nor would the victim be capable of engaging in sexual acrobatics (as seen in this film) thereafter for a very long time,IF EVER.

Bring back the clever gadgets, please! And knock off the graphic and painful parts with no redeeming content.

Eva what's her name was OK, but incredibly young and unbelievable to be a serious auditor and financial controller for huge amounts of the British treasury, sent by M to oversee and grant or withhold approval for James Bonds needs (as far as money is concerned, that is).

The plot twists as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys are trite and commonplace in movie scripts. The far fetched plots in Goldfinger, Dr. No, and all the Sean Connery films were so much fun, it just didn't matter if they were beyond belief. When you left the movie, you knew you had a good time. That is what counts. This film just rates barely an OK on that score. We can recommend it, but not heartily. It pales in comparison with ALL prior James Bond movies.
6/10
Goodbye Bond
jo97920 September 2009
Sadly, I fail to agree with the rave reviews given to this film. By taking away everything that made a Bond film unique, we are left with your run-of-the-mill action flick, save for one or two original twists. If I want to watch a gritty action film, I'll watch The Bourne Supermacy or something of that ilk; I don't want to watch Bond without gadgets, Bond without quips, Bond without a sense of fun. Casino Royale is no fun. It's deadly serious. Daniel Craig is a good 007 and there are some witty dialogue exchanges between Bond and Vesper. But moments like this are fleeting. For the rest of the time you could be watching any other action film. Not impressed, and I hope the producers realise that Bond is best when it is DIFFERENT from other action films, not the same.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
James bond is still at it's best
l_cobern198919 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't know why everyone was saying Daniel Craig won't be good because everyone that has said that are so badly gonna be proved wrong when they see this. It is 1 of the best James bonds. The action sequences in it are really entertaining especially at the beginning. The part in the casino is good to watch as well but really the whole film is great to watch. For all you people saying it's rubbish and Daniel Craig is crap what are u on, did you actually watch the movie? Daniel Craigs acting in it is really good to which a lot of people were saying it would be bad. I am very sure that the next James Bond is going to be just as good.
10/10
Craig is here for a long time.
goshamorrell8 December 2021
"Casino Royale" has the answers to all my complaints about the 45-year-old James Bond series, and some I hadn't even thought of. It's not that I didn't love some of the earlier films, like some, dislike others and so on, as that I was becoming less convinced that I ever had to see another one. This movie is new from the get-go. It could be your first Bond. In fact, it was the first Bond; it was Ian Fleming's first 007 novel, and he was still discovering who the character was. The longtime Saltzman-Broccoli producing team could never get their hands on the rights until now, despite earlier misadventures by others using the same title, and maybe it's just as well, because it provides a fresh starting place. And it returns to the family fold; with her father's passing, Barbara Broccoli is producer. Yes, Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond: Leaner, more taciturn, able to be hurt in body and soul, not giving a damn if his martini is shaken or stirred. That doesn't make him the "best" Bond, because I've long since given up playing that pointless ranking game; Sean Connery was first to plant the flag, and that's that. But Daniel Craig is bloody damned great as Bond, in a movie that creates a new reality for the character. With "Casino Royale," we get to the obligatory concluding lovey-dovey on the tropical sands, and then the movie pulls a screeching U-turn and starts up again with the most sensational scene I have ever seen set in Venice, or most other places. It's a movie that keeps on giving. This time, no Moneypenny, no Q and Judi Dench is unleashed as M, given a larger role, and allowed to seem hard-eyed and disapproving to the reckless Bond. This time, no dream of world domination, but just a bleeding-eyed rat who channels money to terrorists. This time a poker game that is interrupted by the weirdest trip to the parking lot I've ever seen. This time, no laser beam inching up on Bond's netherlands, but a nasty knotted rope actually whacking his hopes of heirs. But I care about Bond, and about Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), even though I know that (here it comes) a Martini Vesper is shaken, not stirred. Vesper Lynd, however, is definitely stirring, as she was in Bertolucci's wonderful "The Dreamers." Sometimes shaken, too. Vesper and James have a shower scene that answers, at last, why nobody in a Bond movie ever seems to have any real emotions. The plot centers on a marathon high-stakes poker game, in which Bond will try to deprive Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) of 10 million or more pounds that would go to finance terrorism. Le Chiffre ("The Cypher") has problems on his own, because he owes money big-time to the people who supply it to him. JAMES BOND will return in Quantum of Solace.
5/10
Better than expected
didi.chow24 April 2007
When the news broke, that Pierce Brosnan was replaced by Daniel Craig, I was upset. Really, really upset. The good news is though: The movie isn't half bad. It's actually quite enjoyable, apart from a couple of times, I had to flinch, because I was reminded, that this is actually a so-called "James Bond" movie.

Even if Judi Dench as 'M' is in it, even if they set new world records in product placement, don't believe what they tell you: It's not a Bond movie. It's a very well made action movie, but that's about it. If this movie was 20 years earlier, it would have flopped. Period.

There's a huge debate, whether this movie is Fleming-like or not, especially when it comes to Bond falling in love. I read the novel, and I have to admit, IMO it has been adapted for the big screen quite well. Besides, there is more than just this one occasion, where Bond actually does fall in love. Furthermore, except for "From Russia With Love" and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", the movies have little to do with the novels anyway. Using Poker instead of Baccara is a minor detail, that can easily be ignored. There was also some criticism towards the music and the lack of the James Bond theme. In my opinion, the soundtrack works quite well, and it has enough "bondian" elements. It's much better than the over-usage of the Bond-Theme like in Dr. No. And while I prefer the soundtracks of John Barry, David Arnold's music definitely comes second. Personally, I think the title song with a male voice was somewhat of a refreshing change - the best since GoldenEye. Especially after the disastrous "Die Another Day" (I was initially excited, when I heard Madonna was going to perform it, but it turned out to be a major disappointment. IMO, worst song of the whole series). So, all that wasn't an issue for me not to enjoy "Casino Royale" entirely. I just watched a couple of old Bond movies again, when it hit me, what went wrong for me:

  • Daniel Craig is a great actor, with a great physique and absolute believability when it comes to actually kill someone. But: He's no womanizer. When he hit on Solange, I thought "Yeah, right, you would definitely score in real life". He's neither debonair nor suave. He lacks of the wittiness and tongue-in-cheek, that Roger Moore had too much of. I actually wonder, why this film worked, while "Licence to Kill" didn't. It's even more serious and just as brutal.


  • Almost no humor whatsoever: Craig appears so humorless, he could be from the German BND rather than the British MI6. In fact, the only British thing is his accent. Moreover, he actually doesn't say so much. But for this the scriptwriters are probably to blame.


  • While the producers claimed, they wanted to reduce the gadgets, they were right. But, I couldn't help myself thinking "Enough already with those damn mobile phones".


  • The movie sports a huge anti-climax after Bond's torture scene. It's simply too slowly paced.


  • English is not my native language, but I always prefer to watch movies in their original rather than the dubbed version. While every other Bond actor had a very defined pronunciation (yes, even Connery), I have to admit, that Craig mumbles at times. Of course, this isn't a big issue for native English speakers.


Bottom-line is, someone like Clive Owen would have been great, but I guess that's out of the window. But, I was able to live with an actor, that fitted to the role as Bond, but was so unfortunate to have to appear in poorly-written movies; I will be able to cope with Daniel Craig, if the scripts are good. But please, bring back Q and Moneypenny, and also a little bit of the humor.
10/10
All bets are off. Daniel Craig as Bond.
tomr-819 November 2006
All of the gnashing of teeth about Daniel Craig taking over as Bond can end. Craig doesn't even try to fit the mold created by Bond's previous avatars. He breaks the damn thing by making Bond his own, and he becomes the man that Ian Fleming originally envisioned in the process. Don't get me wrong, this Bond is sharp, smart, and cool like the Bonds before him, but that's where the similarity ends. Gag lines are held to a blessed minimum, making even Connery's Bond seem like a wisecracker by comparison. It's a darker Bond we see here -- one that truly seems at ease killing people and for whom audacious risk-taking seems not only natural, but obvious. Craig also brings a visceral physicality to Bond that we've never seen before. The man actually looks like he could be a secret agent. That is to say he looks like someone who has put in years in an elite commando force -- built to fight and to endure when the going gets tough. (We get to see quite a lot of Craig's physique in this film too.) I will have to see him in more than one outing to say Craig has dethroned Sean Connery, but he's definitely put Connery on notice with Casino Royal.

I will add that this is the tightest plotting I've ever seen in a Bond film. The story makes sense and there is motivation and an emotional connection with the characters that has been lacking in most of the Broccoli franchise Bond films. This is one Bond film that will definitely be added to my collection on the day the DVD hits the stores.
8/10
A Bond that get's it done, and well
willcundallreview16 June 2014
Casino Royale is a Bond which really puts not just the entire franchise into a new place and direction, but also brings us the actual character of James Bond, changing and becoming something we have never seen before. With an in depth crime thriller and really what can only be said is a special agents film to be used as a template for success, Royale succeeds in bringing us the viewer a fantastic story and probably the best Bond film of all time, maybe. I felt it was firmly very good, and here below is why so.

The story is very interesting, it doesn't mind backing off the massive stunts and fights in parts, but then when they do come they are done so well it just serves to make this even more suspenseful. It has a plot we rarely see also and with a villain to match that, Casino Royale really brings us a fresh plot and it is hard to find much wrong with most of the film. One last thing on the story is that is breathes suspense as said, knowing what will happen next is hard and any moment can throw Bond or others into unpredictable moments.

Daniel Craig in his first outing as Bond is great, he maybe doesn't quite have the feel of Bond all the way through but that is what is so good, he took a risk in making a Bond different and it definitely pays off in a great way. Eva Green as the Bond girls is good too, she also brings a new type of Bond girl and they have a great chemistry that is really good to see from a franchise accused of sexism in it's past. I personally would have liked to have seen more of M in this Bond, it doesn't harm it but I think any Bond fan likes the some of the lines she can deliver.

The script is pretty tight, it doesn't seem to stray at any time and is probably the strongest script Bond has ever produced, brings a surprisingly dramatic depth to the movie. Director Martin Campbell(director of Bond's Goldeneye) is good in this role here and brings consistency along with him from his previous Bond outing, again we find new life in Bond with him too. As I alluded too the stunts are amazing, the best we have seen ever and to be fair this movie, they aren't long sequences, they don't try hard to fit them in but my gosh do they work, spot on.

I guess the only critical point would have to be the air that, well this isn't stereotypically a Bond movie, it does lack the music we so often get from Bond and anyone wanting a nostalgic look back on Bond is never going to get this from this movie. I guess it could also be said that Bond doesn't fit the Bond type(Craig has bulging arms and light hair), but I think the roughness reminds me of Connery and his not so save attitude at times but then when the women came, he was ready, as is Craig.

Bond film fans should absolutely love this, if you watched Die Another Day before this too then even more so, it is a massive step up in Bond history, and one we kind of haven't seen since Goldfinger. It has a lot of good action and as said twice now stunts, those who enjoy that will also like this film as it can just as quietly dramatic as it can be loud but also with a tinge of drama running through it's historic veins.

Overall it is Firmly a Very Good movie, I always think and want Bond to get better with every new movie but I tell you, if any top Casino Royale they well have to be Great because this is one Bond that knows how to get it done. Just watch it with ease and of course watch Daniel Craig in his first go at this, he shouldn't disappoint anybody and of course in any person is a fan of a good looking physique, well Daniel Craig coming out the sea may just excite you.
8/10
Daniel Craig is cut out for this
reservedforgreatness19 November 2006
I have read up on many reviews on Casino Royale, Well all i would like to all the reviews is that first please go and watch every James Bond movie made then compare Daniel Craig to the rest. Its easy to watch one movie and say oh well he is not as good as that, to be honest I will only listen to a critic who has spent time, money and some pleasurable hours watching james bond. All said and done I respect everyone's views and I am

sure if they had something nice or bad to say they probably have their reasons. Well enough of an introduction here is the most important question that everyone wants answered, Is Daniel Craig fit to be James Bond? YES! There is not doubt about it, he has the skill, the accent (The best so far) and foremost the caliber to pull it off. One look at Casino Royale and you know that Daniel Craig is going to be the most brutal James Bond yet. The movie starts with Daniel Craig receiving his double 'o' status by executing a rogue intelligence agent, with two kills under his belt (The first being the rogue agents contact), one look and you know that Daniel Craig has lived up to the role, Casino Royale is the story of how James Bond becomes what he does, a calculated killer who trusts no one. Daniel Craig has done full justice to the role he has been handed, he makes mistakes, learns from his mistakes and moves on.

Eva Green has done a brilliant job as Vesper Lynd the representative of HM Treasury, (Her Majesty's if you are wondering what the HM stands for). Her role in Kingdom of Heaven was what made me take notice and I feel she has surpassed herself in her current role. Kudos!. The movie's plot is brilliant and I like the way the director has stuck to the book as much as possible extrapolating to fit the current day's scenario. Daniel Craig however has actually done something that is not easy to portray, he as withing a span of 2 hours shown how a normal gun for hire type of person becomes a double 'o' agent. As a scene in the movie transpires you see what has happened.

M: "You don't trust anyone do you James?" James Bond: "No" M: "Then you have learn't your lesson.."

From a person who tell Vesper Lynd that he loves her and wants to spend the rest of his life with her sailing the oceans, to a person who says "The b***h is dead" in the end. One can truly see how brutal the world around a secret agent can get, if Ian Fleming were to choose a movie that has done full justice to his books, he will go for this one no doubt.

Back to Daniel Craig, he has pulled of the action sequences like no other James Bond ever has, not even Timothy Dalton or Pierce Brosnan, he is beat up, tortured, poisoned and there is no doubt that Casino Royale is probably the first movie that has shown James Bond being battered so much. So yes Daniel Craig has pulled it off no doubt, however if there is one thing that would like to mention here is that theme song of the movie has to be the most pathetic yet, I hated it and it could have been much better. The scene where James Bond is actually getting his privates pounded on by a rope is perhaps a true reflection on how well double agents handle adversity. The dialogue of the movie is no doubt from the same scene.

James Bond: "I have an itch down there, do you mind?" Le Chiffere, proceeds to pound James Bond's privates with a the rope James Bond (Laughing):: "Now I can tell the whole world you scratched my b**ls"

Now that is what I call pissing someone off.

So to round up, should you watch this movie? Oh yes! and once again, Daniel Craig is cut out for this. As always no revealing the plot.
7/10
When will these racists cast a Black Agent 007 . . .
cricket302 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
. . . as the English invented the Slave Trade, and that would be a very tiny gesture of atonement. Because, ask yourself, has there been a Black Prime Minister? No. Has an English Crown Prince ever married a Black? No again. So the least reparation England can make is to cast a Black James Bond. But no, these bigots have no problem arbitrarily rewriting American CIA agent Felix Leiter's part for Jeffrey Wright, but apparently they would never think of Mr. Wright for Bond's plum role, which was equally vacant in 2006 when CASINO ROYALE hit the screens. This despite the fact that most Black British Empire actors speak "the Queen's English" far better than the White blokes in TRAINSPOTTING (if not QEII herself). Plus, I've seen all the screen tests trotted out as Bond "Ultimate Edition Extras," and I've listened to all the Bond insiders blabbing about their casting shenanigans, and it's clear the Eon Company is NOT color-blind when it comes to casting Bond. Agent 007's theme music might sound more appropriate for SHAFT than a string of a half dozen White guys, but when it comes to being Bond, Blacks get shafted!
5/10
dunno whether Craig is the best bond but the film is certainly not .....
anand_rar17 November 2006
First off........i had a lot of expectation from the film trailers showing the first action scene. i was totally disappointed to find that it was the only action scene worth watching in the entire movie. The plot of the movie wasn't impressive at all. I problem was that i expected too much. Probably thats why i feel so baaad.The finale was totally unexpected and felt like they ended the movie in the middle of a scene. I simply loved the stunts performed by Daniel Craig. His voice is exceptional too. But if u tell me his looks could kill, then i will have to assume its coz he looks real bad (cool body though).Another negative was that there wasn't a single gadget worth mentioning in the entire movie. Even the bonds in the 1960s used better gadgets. The marvelous Aston martin was put to no use. There wasn't even a stunt of 'overtaking' with the Aston martin before which it was damaged in an accident.There wasn't a good villain in the movie. And finally, i never imagined bond as a sensitive, desperate person due the characters played by Sean Connery and pierce brosnan. But this bond was so damn sensitive , serious, desperate, egoistic that i got real sick watching.
9/10
Bonds back
Macleanie18 June 2019
Casino Royale is a fantastic re-imagining of the bond franchise completely reviving it bringing more class and sophistication to the table. Daniel Craig is an epitome of that, taking James Bonds character forward with a more raw personality that is honest, arrogant and genuine. The story itself is suspenseful with its own twists and turns and has all that you expect from a traditional bond movie yet feeling completely fresh with less tacky gadgetry and more intelligence. The woman in bonds arm is this time a story of love and lost, a source for all anger and direction for the movies to come in the franchise. Overall its a fantastic watch, one you have to be in the mood to watch compared to the 007 of old which is more of a popcorn flick, a bold move in the right direction.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Nutcracker.
unfinishedfootsteps2 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Had to watch this over two nights, it was that dull and I was falling asleep. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Bond plays cards, wins money, celebrates with his lady, who then try's to do a runner with it, oh who didn't see that coming! Action scenes here and there, pumped with loud generic "bondy" orchestra music. And then the movie just ends. That was it
2/10
A huge anticipation....a big disappointment..
mykc236 September 2007
I didn't make it to the cinema so I waited and purchased the DVD instead. Now I wished that i had not been so stupid to fall into the marketing hype..

**Warning: Spoiler ahead**

First things first... Craig is not Bond. I doubt it if he will ever be. He is lacking charm, charisma and not to mention the typical good-looking Bond look. Is this the man that supposed to carry the tag "The men want to be him and the women want to be with him"? Oh Please.... this is the only Bond that I don't ever want to be with. Ever! What a total miscast. Enter Casino Royale - Bond is brutal, rude, arrogant and vain with no brain!! Not the classic smooth, sophisticated, suave, magnetic playboy Bond that I loved and grew up with. At one point I felt sorry for Daniel Craig. He tried so hard to make his impersonation of Bond believable but I just don't buy it. He is just not very delightful to watch. If he were going to stay then it would be an ultimate kill for all women to fantasize over Bond...

The plot is weak and silly. No excitement at all. I fell asleep halfway through and have to drag myself the next day to finish it. Even the stunts and actions were boring and I felt tired with Bond chasing and kicking the bad guy. The poker games were unimpressive, unexciting.. no respect whatsoever to the title Casino Royale… The villains have equally no brain either. Bond easily found out 'eclipse' through villain's cellphones registry. Unbelievable...An absolute insult to intelligence.

The love scenes between the two lovebirds were zero in chemistry. With the non-existence romance between the two I find it an utter idiocy when Bond wanted to resign for this girl. Even worse when he later realized that he was actually conned all the way through. Duh???? This is not Bond!! As a secret agent Bond would be too slick and smart to figure that out right? Nope, not this Bond..

Not worth a single cent. With a dumb movie like this not only Craig but no other actors to play Bond can do justice to it. Watch it yourself and we can all experience the disappointment...
5/10
8.0 is totally overrated
Battlelore30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not a big Bond fan and i didn't expect much of this movie, but its an OK popcorn action movie. I'm expecting a good story, cool action, new ideas and many surprises of a 8.x movie. This film doesn't justify such a rating.

If you are a Bondfan you'll most likely love or hate this movie. Its a completely other Bond than Brosnan was and many people will say this isn't a Bond but its not a new Bond, its just a completely other Bond than Brosnan was. Personally i like this Bondtype much more than the Brosnan type of Bond. But in the end this in only a composition of old Bond movies. No new ideas in this movie. Bond showing emotions? Already seen in "licence to kill". Bond getting tortured ? already seen in "die another day".

The action scenes are pretty good but not better than in any other A class Actionmovie and especially nothing amazing in times of Mission Impossible 3.

The story is OK but its getting weird from time to time. If you watch the movie carefully you'll even find some logical flaws.

There were also parts in the movie when i felt like at the end of "Lord of the ring 3". You sit in the cinema and ask yourself when its going to end and it goes on and on and on.

If you are a bond-fan go watch it. If you like action-movies, go watch it. If you like popcorn movies without much thinking, go watch it.

If you want anything else, don't wast your time.

I don't think anyone would talk much about this film if it didn't have the "Bond" in the name.
5/10
this bond sucked
mfilas21 February 2007
Okay, so Daniel Craig is supposed ot be the first installation of Bond, and perhaps he is true to the books. But, I am a fan who grew up with Moore and Connery as Bond and have even enjoyed the others who have played him. But Daniel Craig's Bond was too arrogant, not funny, and the action, except for a great chase scene in the beginning, was too slack and dull. Where is ROger Moore running across the backs of crocodiles? Where is the truly memorable villain? Where are the naked women in the credits? Bah! There were boring gadgets and lots of product placement. If I want to watch long scenes of card playing, I'll watch cards on TV, but if I'm watching Bond, I want some action, some gadgets, some sexy women, and a great villain. And it would not hurt if Bond were funny. James Bond in love? C'mon! Give me back my secret agent man who is better than the rest.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Was this really a Bond film???
diarma_104 February 2007
I was like before I watch most Bond films very excited about it. The film got off to a breathtaking start with the chases on the rooftops and I believed we were going to be in for one of the best Bond films.

However, as the film went on and no MAJOR plots were in place, I started to fear the worse.

In all James Bond films of the past the 'bad guy' has been involved in a plan to do something major, take over the world etc etc but if I am not mistaken this bad guy was a money launderer and all he seemed to achieve was beating him at Poker at Casino Royale and obviously the accountant from MI5 HQ was in on it but surely if you make a James Bond movie then there has to be a better script that this, especially when Daniel Craig was living up to usual James Bond standards.

I hope Daniel Craig does another movie and it is better than this one, I was left so disappointed when the ending came.
1/10
in general
twine2002700-125 June 2007
the worst bond movie i have seen, its worse than the original casino royal, and that one was a bad movie, the theme song is awful for starting a bond movie, it seems to have nothing to do with the title, the bond girls in that movie are also not even part of the opening song, and the rest is to just see a bunch of actions shots that are not really necessary, i am very disappointed, it seems the days of good bond movies are over, and apparently i need to have 10 lines of text to post this, and really the movie isn't worth 10 lines of text if any. anymore lines of text that i would put down for this movie would make it obscene
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bad bond movie, good action movie !!!
loyolite19 December 2006
I was disappointed in this movie, coz I was expecting a typical BOND movie. This movie lacks all the features that make a movie , a BOND movie : bond music is minimal, hardly any good car chases, lack bond gadgets completely, only one bond girl, no exotic locations for the climax of the movie, no climax for the movie as well ! I think the movie is alright if you go to see it not expecting the regular jhing-bang you get in the bond movies. But otherwise, its quite disappointing ...also it ends too abruptly. When you think the movie is about to get over, it doesn't .. when you think its about to pick up, it ends suddenly !!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent movie, but overrated.
zackary-silver19 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Movie was good, and despite that ending, which I will come to in a bit, I really like this James Bond's character.

Daniel Craig, is an alright 007, but I find he was a little bit creepy, rather than smooth, in some of his close up shots and just the shape of his head and his face gave me a minor creepy vibe; especially the end bit where he makes out with the corpse (he gave up the CPR and instead decided to make out with her).

On his character, I liked the fact that he is a cold hearted killer, and only cared for the job, that was cool. He had all the stuff I would expect in a James Bond; the stylish car, suits, the cocky attitude, the gun etc he wasn't really a womanizer in this one, which is okay. but that end bit with the fallen in love bit, and the run away romance was just terrible. Ass water writing.

The entire time during that romance rubbish, I was hoping that he would have come out, knowing she was dodgy, and said something like "everyone has their call sign" and told her he knew something was strange, so he wanted to keep her close.

The fact that he is AN INTELLIGENCE AGENT, and doesn't think its strange that they weren't killed, or doesn't suspect that woman, or notice anything odd until it is shoved in his face is just bad. and the fact that he kinda just gave up on finishing the mission was stupid. She should have turned out bad and he should have heartlessly gone along with it, waiting for the right time to catch her.

The other thing I don't understand is: WTF did MI6 do really? What actually was the point of the movie? In the end all MI6 did was give 007 money to play poker; it was the CIA that were going to take down Le Chiffe (spelling?), with or without MI6 help. Maybe in the end they took out the main guy running the shots, Mr White, but that was overshadowed by that really terrible text thing, which I didn't get; but still, the stuff leading up to that was all coincidence, not planning by mi6.

So yeah, I enjoyed the first 3/4 of the movie, after the torture scene,everything went to s#!t, IMO. The main plot wasn't explicit, Bond's character goes through some major character change and the product placement was so in your face it was annoying.
3/10
Too Serious
prudhoeboy28 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie was not an outright failure, but so many lost opportunities to fix it. Examples: We sure lost a lot of Bond music Bond and Vesper yacked away like it was a soap opera wasting our time. Then we find out she was really just playing him. Playing Bond?

He didn't hold court and command the card table nearly as well as Connery, Moore or even Brosnan would have. Why are the lesser players still at the table near the end of the game? Where are the crowds forming around the table with oos and ahhs at every play? Where are the wafts of cigarette or cigar smoke over the table and the associated props and confident one liners that exude Bond confidence?

Extended gymnastics chasing a terrorist up a building under construction. Why not just wait for the guy to come down rather than all the risk going up after him? It doesn't make sense, except to sell an action movie. Bond doesn't think much. He just reacts and runs after like a coyote chasing a rabbit.

They had to torture him to get a simple password a child could have guessed.

Mediocre theme song (can you remember it?) This all goes back to 2001 when Brosnan should have done his 4th Bond. That is when the franchise collapsed. Die Another Day would then have been his 5th Bond, and Casino Royale his 6th. If he had kept in shape he could have done it and maybe even achieved the magic number 7 achieved by Connery and Moore. Then Eon could have brought in Craig to do Quantum, which he was far more suited to. Nobody cares about what happens to this guy.
9/10
A darker, grittier, Bond..
johnnymacbest26 November 2006
The last time we saw Bond was in the abysmal "The World Is Not Enough and the campy, CGI-loaded dreck that was "Die Another Day". The worst offense to me was being paired up with Denise Richards, who, in laments terms, a horrible actress to boot. As a life long fan caught in a love/hate relationship with Bond, I eagerly awaited this latest film. I felt in my heart that I would be riveted again, but feared I would be disappointed again, given the direction the franchise has taken in recent years. However, I am happy to report that my expectations have been more than met.

This is hands down, the BEST Bond film that I have seen in years. Gone is the campy/cartoonish, flamboyant tone from previous films. The plot is more realistic and exciting. I like the fact that the film uses real locations and practical effects (which is a lost art, especially in today's films)rather than CGI, which unfortunately is becoming common place now in action movies (xXx: State of the Union is one example). The action scenes are more brutal and coherent. The technology is great without the silly OTT gadgets, making this film work by today's standards. Bond is more a cold-blooded efficient killer than past Bonds, played exquisitely by Daniel Craig. Craig has certainly cemented the role, even more so than say... Pierce Brosnan. Goldenye and Tomorrow Never Dies were good films, but were cartoony and over the top. I suspect that this is the main reason why Brosnan left the franchise.

Martin Campbell has done a great job. He not only gives the film class and gravitas, but a strong foundation, something that the previous films have been severely lacking. He reinvigorates the character in a way that Christopher Nolan has done with the smash-hit Batman Begins. The decision to base the character in reality was certainly a stroke of genius and in the case of Bond, it shows. What's also refreshing is that we finally see Bond face real villains not the comic-book style caricatures that were so prevalent in the series. And the dialog that they deliver is menacing, not campy.

Some might say that the plot is a little off in spots, but I say that it is the best in the series as it presents a dark and gritty atmosphere that's believable. Bond is lethal, ruthless, cold and doesn't play second fiddle to the bad guys; a far cry from Brosnan who was a bit of a softie. The only negative I can think of is Eva Green. Her performance wasn't bad, but I think they've could have gotten someone more exotic and sexy and better suited as Bond's love interest.

Casino Royal is the best Bond movie of the series and the best movie of the year. Fans of Dr. No and For Your Eyes only will truly appreciate this film. Not only is it the best in the series, but its the most unconventional. And the ending (Craig saying the famous catch-phrase) leaves an open door for a sequel. Go see it!! See it again and be "Shaken, not Stirred".
6/10
Unsympathetic characterisation mars this for me
bwilson-30829 December 2006
I have seen all the James Bond films - and this is to be numbered among those that I am in no rush to see again, rather than among those I love.

The reason is that the James Bond of this film is a sadistic thug - and nothing more. There has always been something appealing about the previous characterisation of James Bond, but this James Bond is a killing machine without any redeeming characteristic.

It has been said that Daniel Craig marks a return to the harder-edged cruelty of Sean Connery. I disagree. What made the Sean Connery characterisation appealing to me was that it was also larger-than-life and witty - as well as being cruel. And that undeniable cruelty must also be seen in context - Domino in 'Thunderball', for example, sees James Bond as someone who treats her as a gentleman would, in contrast to the way Largo treats her. The cruelty of the Sean Connery James Bond can therefore relax into tenderness when that James Bond perceives there to be no threat to himself.

Other James Bond outings have had their own appeal. But it is a mistake to make too many comparisons between Craig's James Bond and the Bourne films. The Bourne films contain both excitement and a character one can sympathise with - a killer who is repentant enough to seek forgiveness from the daughter whose parent he had had to kill.

Perhaps I shall be able to find something I like in this James Bond characterisation. The film may be faithful to the original book and character of 'Casino Royale' in many respects, but I beg to differ from both critical and popular opinion on this one at the minute. Ian Fleming's James Bond is not a particularly likable character, but previous characterisations combined his immorality and amorality with qualities one could relate to and an appealing superhumanness. Perhaps the series creators should also reflect that durable screen tough guys like Humphery Bogart had things that this James Bond characterisation lacks - wit, warmth and humour.
9/10
Brutally Wonderful/Wonderfully Brutal
tpaladino21 March 2007
As many have already trumpeted, James Bond is triumpantly back, and his name is Daniel Craig.

More accurately, I think the phrase should be that James Bond has finally arrived, as I think this Bond is the closest to the true spirit of the character that anyone has ever come.

Stripped of his fantastical gimmicks and gadgets, this Bond is a human being, who bleeds, feels pain, makes mistakes and has flaws, but does his job exceedingly well. All traits that previous Bonds have been conspicuously devoid of. Past writers have thought removing the humanity from Bond made him cool. But Craig is easily the coolest Bond ever, exactly because of his humanity. He's cold, but you can see that he makes an effort to be cold. And that makes all the difference here.

Furthermore, I think that this is also the closest we've ever seen to what an actual 'James Bond' type agent would be like if he were to exist in reality. Wickedly smart, resourceful, psycholologiclly damaged, fiercely loyal, and with a general sense of barely constrained madness, all coming together to serve whatever mission is laid before him. If an actual person were in this role, this is likely an accurate portrait.

As for the film itself, there is not much room for improvement. It has all of the usual beauty and exotica one expects from a Bond film, but has been stripped of the superfluousness. No laser-watches and invisible cars, or utterly unbelievable plot devices. The acting is solid, the writing is sharp and very very smart, and the cinematography is outstanding. The fight scenes are absolutely brutal and realistic in such a fantastic way that words really fail to describe the experience. And there is one torture scene that nobody will soon forget, and in my mind seals the deal regarding my high opinion of Daniel Craig in this role.

My only reservation here is that they've set such a high bar with this film, I worry the next one will inevatably be something of a disappointment. I lend part of the credit on this film to the fact that it is the first one in a very long time to be based on an actual Ian Flemming novel. I hope there is another one out there that can be adapted for film, or that a new script can be developed that captures the same magic that was unleashed in this one.
1/10
Lost all the fun of a James Bond
dennis012324 March 2007
I have been a James Bond fan for ever and I am now 63 years old. I own each film and have seen them dozens of times. The producers have finally done what I really thought was impossible, they made the worst Bond film ever. It had nothing to do with the actors they did a fine job with the material they had to work with. The director had the intense drive of a Bond movie but that was it. No fun, no tricks, no beyond belief escapes, none of the great stuff a Bond film really is. Not one laugh,must have been uttered in the movie house, I'm sorry I saw it at home and didn't get the reaction of a movie crowd.

I've read some of the comments i.e. "Best Ever" "Greatest Bond Film" and I guess these are from the young generation. It reminded me of the movie of the TV series "Miami Vice" and what they did to the characters of Sonny and Tubs. They "Modernized" them! Studios are loosing the baby boomers with this new overly intense moveie and have taken the "FUN" out of all these characters. I should have looked to see if it was the same studio

I'm sorry for the new generation that they my never see a total film

Dennis M Carpenter
9/10
Casino Royale
freewillyfan2 November 2019
Casino Royale is the first Daniel Craig Bond film. This was a great way to reboot the franchise. It was dark and gritty and it was nice to see Bond as a brand new 00 agent who is much more reckless. Daniel Craig is great as Bond is my person favourite Bond. The villain and plot are great. The Bond girl is one of the best. The action in this is terrific, every action scene was done brilliantly. The poker scene is actually really good to watch. It could have been very boring but it's not. The film does get a little slow after the poker but it has a very good payoff in the final act. Definitely one of the best bonds.

9.3/10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What the hell was this?
Vanquish7471 December 2006
This has to be the worst Bond movie i have EVER seen... Maybe this was an OK movie as a movie. As a Bond film this was utterly horrible. First off, this idiot actor is nothing of a Gentlemen. A childish necrophiliac at best. Have any of you read the books? Bond isn't a Gung Ho, action man who can fly 50 feet several times without getting hurt. He is a Gentlemen, a suave master of everything. This bond got played badly. Taken advantage of in every way. And the plot, what plot? was there a plot? I don't think so... what has MGM done with this one? They shot themselves in the foot badly with this one. Die Another Day was written odd enough, but at least a Gentlemen was Bond. This movie was written horribly, and it had an animal playing bond. All i can say is; what the heck were you thinking casting this horrible actor as Bond? My advice, Dis-Own this movie and bring back Pierce Brosnan, or at least someone who can act for Gods-sake. Does it make sense that Pierce isn't Bond? Die Another day borough in over 500 million dollars worth of profit, thats half a billion dollars, the most successful bond yet!

I give this movie a a solid 1, do not see this movie, its not worth your money.
1/10
Rookie Bond is rubbish
HarveyDentDies12 July 2007
The idea to have a rookie, pedestrian Bond is rubbish. Bond is Bond and will do things like drink martinis, look stylish, and say Bond, James Bond. Many of those things are rendered anachronistic when performed or said by a rookie, wet-behind-the-ears agent. An old fart Cold War fossil, a relic of a different era ingesting Beluga and Caviar in bed? - OK, sure, I'll buy that. But why in the blazes is this greenhorn rough n' tumble amateur doing such things? Am i to believe his years in SAS training were spent sipping Cabernet Sauvignon slightly below room temperature somewhere in the South of France? This decision to change Fleming's character into a rookie ruined one of the core elements of the character.

The story lacks the emotional development of the superbly written one in the novel, it pales in comparison to it. The Casting/characterization: lacks conviction and appeal. Craig's characterization of Bond is charmless, worthless, and disturbingly nihilistic. Judi Dench. Her "M" is more unsympathetic than ever. No other actress has ever contributed less charm and more unfemininity to the Bond series than Dame Judi Dench. They've turned her into a monster. At least during the Brosnan era she had the father figure angle like Bernard Lee's M. Now they thought it would be cool to have her have a "don't mess with me attitude" and swagger. The opening, in some grimy bathroom, and shooting some nobody was the worst pre-title sequence of all the Bond movies, nice way to inroduce the new Bond. None of them were this run-of-the-mill plain, it felt more like a xerox actioner. One thing i did like was the rich Technicolor-style cinematography looking more classy. Unfortunately the content we see through the lenses does not compare.
4/10
A great disappointment to the bond name
bailskateboards31 March 2007
OK, I'm sitting here watching goldeneye after just finished watching Casino Royale. DC, is a disgrace to the bond name. Brosnan is who i hold as the pinnacle of all bonds (yes, that includes Connery). Its unbelievable that this guy actually managed to get the post. I guess its all a matter of time whether he will redeem himself in the next movie or just fill me and my friends with Utter disappointment once again. Don't take me the wrong way, he is a good actor, but he isn't Bond. all the bonds in the past (bar one) have had class, style and a little something that young and old people alike could aspire to. Id personally give this movie a 4 out of 10 and can do nothing but beg for the return of brosnan or someone more suited to the role of that one great character, Bond, James Bond.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Looking forward to skyfall..
jimforgod10 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watch bond movies to have some fun, such as laugh at good jokes and see some awesome action. But these latest bond outings have been somewhat lackluster .. my favorite bonds of all time were Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery, I do like Daniel Craig as the new bond but I just find that he lacks the humor and cleverness in his performances that previous bond actors had and it gives the movie a more serious tone which is unwanted. All the classic bonds had fun with the character but kept the plot serious and that's part of the reason they worked so well.

The scene where Bond gets his nuts whacked around by the villain was as a man myself one of the most torturous experiences is have ever had in a movie theater after every hit a piece of me died.. and just added to how serious these films were becoming serious and boring.

It feels like we spend the 85% of the film in the casino watching these "interesting" people sit round the table and play cards which is extremely boring.. like watching people type on computers it's like *type type* snooooooorrr you know get on with it..(yes I know the title is casino royale but come on) and the other 15% of the movie I feel like I'm watching a Bourne film where someone's getting the crap beaten out of them constantly.

I do pick up on some on like 2 of Craig's lines which I guess were suppose to be jokes, hard to tell when he shows no expression or emotion there is no enjoyment no fun.. now to the good things in this movie.

I think Daniel Craig is a suitable replacement for Brosnan but it wouldn't hurt for him to lighten up you know it's already such hard times we don't want to go to the movies to see 007 depressed as well..

The pre-credit chase sequence was really well done.

The new Felix Leiter Jeffrey Wright did a very believable and good job.

It was good to see Judi Dench Back as M.

Jesper Christensen as Mr. White did a great job at being a mysterious third party and building up the next film but thats another story..

Last off Giancarlo Giannini who plays Mathis did a very good job of being Bonds contact.

But wait where the hell was Q and Money penny and the gadgets i mean come on when I first went into watch this I felt ripped off at the end when I didn't see these things.. and where was Colin Salmon? dear god..

I rate this movie 5.5/10 even though this type of bond film has things going for it I feel like I'm missing out on some of the key elements of what makes a bond film a bond film those being the humor and the gadgets, i really thing the producers and directors need to have a serious bloody look at all of the original bonds and some of the later ones to get a grip on what true fans of the series want out of upcoming films.. and in case their a little confused and what some of these films are I'll list a few of them.. Goldfinger, Thunderball, Tomorrow Never Dies, You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, Dr. No and Goldeneye dare I go on.. I will only wonder if I have written this review in vain and that this skyfall will Fall flat on it's face and have learnt nothing from this movie but hey maybe I have this completely wrong considering this has 8 star rating..
6/10
Strong new character- same plot shortcomings
gary-44418 November 2006
I have seen every new Bond film since the late - 60's and seen every one made.Like many, i was disappointed with the demise of Pierce Brosnan as Bond, and nervous about Daniel Craig's appointment. I needn'thave been.

Craig brings an icy steeliness to the character not really seen since Connery. I loved Brosnan as Bond, but accept that he lacked menace.In Casino Royale, Bond is probably the most convincing menacing character, on screen. The opening post title chase sequence is not only one of the best Bond chases ever- it ranks with the best full stop.In itself it makes the film worth seeing. So, after these plaudits , whats wrong? The film is too long, and the last third lacks pace.The Card game sequence lacks power because we don't know enough about the players, and goes on for too long. the traditional female glamour associated with bond films is largely absent.Apart from Bonds' girl, and the baddies'girl, there is hardly a female in sight.What there is , is copiously clothed. By contrast, the interest in Bonds body is almost homo-erotic.Wehave the "Dr No" Ursula Andress cloned Bond emerging from the water,and close ups of his bare chest and nipples on several occasions apart from his nude torture scene. The girls by contrast are firmly robed.

The new Bond theme and incidental music is awful.I am all for contemporising themes.The "Mission Impossible" and British TV "Dr Who" themes are universally loved, but haveboth een given successful makeovers.This failed dismally.

The Venice finale is risible and anti climactic, and little effort is made to capitalise on the dramatic opening fifteen minutes - the film gradually losing momentum thereafter.

The overall verdict is that the Bond franchise is safe in the capable, and different hands of Craig. But how i long for a convincing, well paced, well written story line.
8/10
Notes from the Other Side
gradyharp10 April 2007
Not being a James Bond addict this viewer approached CASINO ROYALE in the quiet of the home with the DVD form of the film. For the first time the unique appeal of this 007 character makes sense under Daniel Craig's interpretation. Prior Bond films with the varied actors who have portrayed him have gone for the slick, tricky, smart killing machine whose eyes seemed always on the outlook for the next gorgeous babe he treated with little respect except for physical favors. The various villainous characters seemed to blend and the stories appeared to be more interested in that tired musical soundtrack theme and carnage than they were in character development.

Enter Daniel Craig, all buff and uber-masculine, and the beginnings of James Bond's character are explained in a touching manner, making this machine-like concept a deeper being. Of course, credit must go to director Martin Campbell working with an intelligent script by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade which travels Craig's Bond from Uganda, to the Bahamas, Miami, Montenegro and Venice. The chief bad guy this round is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who complete with scarred blind eye and cruel gaze is Bond's nemesis. Judi Dench turns in another strong performance as the ubiquitous 'M' on charge of 007's ventures and along the way Bond meets such good/bad characters as Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright, and the very elegant and stylish French actress Eva Green whose complex character provides all the information we needed to know about James Bond's view of women.

CASINO ROYALE is a strong 2 1/2 hour film that for this viewer makes James Bond an interesting character in addition to being a suave stunt/lady-killer man. Daniel Craig is in fine form (literally) and proves his mettle here. This viewer will see the next Bond/Craig film in the theaters! Grady Harp
5/10
An Action-Packed but Dark Bond Film.
OllieSuave-0078 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is supposedly James Bond's first adventure as a "Licensed to Kill" agent, and actor Daniel Craig's first outing as 007. In this story, Bond must stop Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world's terrorist organizations, from winning a poker tournament to raise money for the investors at Casino Royale in Montenegro.

This film is action-packed. My favorite actions scene is when Bond must stop the destruction of a great airplane in Miami, plotted by Le Chiffre to crash the bonds in the stock market and break the air flight company. The poker tournament is filled with suspense, letting the audience wonder what tricks Bond and Le Chiffre have up their sleeves. And, Eva Green as Bond girl Vesper Lynd gave a stunning performance, joining forces with Bond in the fight against evil, and eventually becoming his first love interest.

This film was done pretty well to serve as the prequel to all the other Bond films, as it depicts how Bond first receives his license to kill and how M has placed her trust in Bond's ability to carry out and finish a mission. The chemistry between the two were catchy. As Bond utters his last line, "My name is Bond, James Bond," in the film, you would know that his adventures as Agent 007 have just begun. However, what was a little out of context was that since this is the "first" Bond movie, shouldn't they have someone else portray M rather than Judi Dench, since she portrayed M in the "later" Bond films? And, I thought the use of modern day technology like cell phones and e-mail also was out of context. In addition, this film does lack the humor, charm and zest found in the earlier Bond films with Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Craig was a little too serious and somber at times, with no mixed emotions. Craig also lacks the suaveness and charm from the previous Bonds; he gives this impression like he is just some vengeful person out with a vendetta.

The special effects were fantastic, though a little overkill at times, and I thought some scenes were too dark and gritty even for a Bond film. This film leaves much continuity towards the end which, again, let's you know that a long line of adventures for Bond have yet to come.

Grade C-
1/10
Bet on this one and lose!
gabbymoron17 November 2006
I've had more suspenseful poops than Casino Royale.

Where to begin? Daniel Craig is NOT secret agent James Bond 007. He is in fact a man-child, waving around a gun like it was his chocolate milk, nevermind that he's a poopy actor. He makes you long for Robert Hegyes. Craigers is hunky, but there are reasons not everyone can be Bond (i.e. cinnamon).

This has got to be the lamest plot ever in a Bond movie. A banker winning at a casino to fund terrorism? Come on. That sounds like a bad rerun of The Crotch Chronicles. I miss Jaws, that lady who cracked your head with her shins, and Crackers McSnaggle. You know who would be a great Bond villain? Bull the bailiff from Night Court. You talking' to me?

What I will say about Casino Royale is that some of the characters are pretty crazy. Judi Dench as M reminds me of my ninth grade home room teacher. "Meat 'n' potatas." High marks also go to Eva Green, who is NOT poopy in this one.

Overall, I do not recommend Casino Royale.
3/10
What's the fuss all about?
louistheb6 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
--Attention: this comment MAY contain spoilers--

I don't normally write reviews, but seeing at all the great comments and high ratings everywhere, I felt like I had to voice my opinion...especially as some of these positive reviews are from some other classic James Bond fans!

To summarise: I did try to stay open-minded, but I felt like I was watching Mission Impossible 4 and not a James Bond - and an MI4 that was far to be as good as MI3 (note: at the time I write this review, Mission Impossible 3 is the last film of the series).

What I liked: -The overwhelming CGI which had made Die Another Day look like an episode of Star Trek has almost totally gone. -Nice impressive stunts at the beginning of the film with the French free-runner (but it was probably the only impressive stunt of the film). -BMWs are gone and James Bond drives a beautiful Aston Martin DBS (although he crashes it fairly quickly) as well as a DB5. -The story is more realistic than in a lot of Bond films.

What I didn't like: -The lack of gun barrel sequence is replaced by Bond shooting CGI blood after a weird black & white introduction to the film. -The opening credits are not very memorable, with a strange song which lyrics seem to have nothing to do with the film and not so good special effects. -Daniel Craig (I did try but I still can't picture him as being Bond). -Bond is portrayed as a cold-hearted killer who kills for pleasure, and who seems to be all muscle and no brain. -Bond's relationship with M makes you think of him more like a mercenary or a hit-man than a professional spy. -With Judi Dench being back even though the events are at the beginning of Bond's career, it feels like there is no continuation but it is a messy non-official James Bond film and that it shouldn't be counted as being part of the series but rather forgotten or put aside like the George Lazenby one... -It is violent as well and doesn't qualify as light-hearted family entertainment. -The atmosphere is very dark too, maybe it's closer to the spirit of the Ian Flemming's novels, but it is far from what made me the Bond fan I am. -The poker game DOES last for ages. It may be full of suspense for people who understand card games, but for others like me it is boring. After he came back from his (incredibly) quick recovery of nearly dying, I couldn't believe it still wasn't finished. -The tongue-in-cheek and play on words are virtually gone. -Gadgets are mostly gone too. -In fact most of what made James Bond James Bond is gone. And I felt like I was watching a boring usual modern action movie. -Again I was led to believe by other reviews that the plot was great, but it's in fact very basic: win money at a card game and kill the bad guys that get in the way until you finally get rid of the big boy. -The number of obvious product placements keeps on increasing from one Bond film to another.

So now make your mind up - I just don't understand why so many people like this film - I saw it and was truly disappointed, especially by the second half of the film...
4/10
What was that?
oxolife17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What? This film makes no sense. It's completely contrived. That it's an improvement on Die Another Day should be damning faint praise when it commits so many of the same crimes against the Bond franchise. Instead of terrible CG surfing we have (fashionably current) Parc Cor chase sequence, over an hour of (fashionably current) Texas hold-em and, as far as I can make out, no discernible ending. This is compounded by the most limp, unconvincing bond girl since, well... Halle Berry, but that's not the point! Vesper was supposed to be the love of his life, yet she (spoiler!) A. Wasn't actually in love with him. B. Betrayed him. C. Actually had another boyfriend who we belatedly learn was kidnapped by terrorists. (Poor guy, for all we know they've still got him) This was supposed to be a journey into why Bond is the way we know him to be, but he reacted pretty much the same at the beginning and end of the film to the deaths of the two bond girls. It was supposed to be gritty, yet it was just as sanitised as any Hollywood film with (for the most part) the realities of violence abandoned for spectacle. By adding one twist too many, the emotional impact on Bond is reduced to the point where the plot doesn't even make sense. Try not to think about the story too much. I did and look what happened. I can buy Dan Craig as Bond but the guy needs a better film than this to show his stuff. With foolish optimism, I look forward to the next one,

Oxo
8/10
"The name is Bond...James Bond"
jpschapira5 September 2007
James Bond movies are not just about Bond…It's Bond and the action, Bond and the fights, Bond and the cars, Bond and the Martinis, Bond and the villains Bond and the girls. "Casino Royale" has all this elements and uses them brilliantly and for that simple reason it is the best Bond movie I've seen in my life; considering I haven't watched all of them.

Maybe it was the fact that I truly detested Pierce Brosnan's arrogance, or that the action was too heavy, or that things didn't make much sense; but I just couldn't enjoy the last emissions of the saga. "Casino Royale", with its long duration and different settings, becomes thoroughly enjoyable. A big part of this result occurs because the action scenes are mostly short and exciting, until the last sequence, which is a satisfying climax that you can tolerate and appreciate.

I believe that "Die Another Day", for example, was too over the top in every element, but it's not difficult to notice the perfect balance here. Take the plot, with its simple development of a mission we don't have to analyze much, and wittily scripted love relationship, accurately managed by the leading stars. And I must say that it is a film with well-drawn patterns; the villain is a bad man with his beautiful woman and a huge boat sailing in the ocean…Talk about good cliché usage.

And the technical work is masterful. The camera looks like taken from an old movie, with elegant and easy shots, so the film looks old and consequently everything does; the edition, the chilling score and the general mood that generates a contradiction, because the devices used by agents are as modern as ever but the environment is not.

However, the true magic lies in the agent himself: Bond. Director Martin Campbell understood his task and made "Casino Royale" so we could see that this was the beginning of his work as a double 0 agent…How does he do this? Details, for example: in persecuting a fast running man at the beginning of the film, Bond doesn't have the ability to jump from the highest roof without getting injured; so he uses what he has around him because he is intelligent, but when he does jump he gets hurt.

On another side, he makes such stupid mistakes due to his ego. But it is a human ego; and Daniel Craig's performance captures it in a breeze of fresh air that leave Pierce Brosnan's portrayals looking like something coming out of a perfect robot. The same goes for Eva Green, who manages her chemistry with Craig in order to look not just like the beautiful woman she is, but also as a human being capable of showing true love that refuses to be another disposable Bond element.

There's one scene where they both have a conversation in a train, analyzing each other…Did I enjoy that scene! I didn't enjoy some performances because they didn't convince me, but I smiled during the action sequences and during so many moments that I just stopped thinking about it. There's a new level of action films, prequels or eternal sequels or something like that…Nolan's "Batman Begins", Stallone's "Rocky Balboa", Lee's "Inside Man", I heard the new "Die Hard" was good…Watch them all!
9/10
I want to become a secret agent
tellytubbymama20 November 2006
My man took me to see this movie tonight and what a movie. We loved it! Even though it has received a major promotional buildup (and movies nearly always fail to live up to expectation in these circumstances), we were not disappointed. It actually far exceeded my expectations. This is a brand new style of Bond movie - new brooms have totally swept clean . This movie has everything and is unlike any Bond film I've seen before. Great casting, incredible stunts and pulsating action as well as fantastic scenery. Highly recommended - I've totally fallen for Bond all over again. Daniel Craig is wonderful and totally made this role his own. I also recommend you see it on the big screen .
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
007: Rebirth
questl-1859210 February 2021
As I think back on thhe recent history of this franchise, Casino Royals becomes more and more impressive. I grew up on the Brosnan Bond and to this day I will defend him as a great 007 who wound up in some ridiculous movies that nearly killed the franchise. Seriously, when we last saw our favorite member of MI:6 he was racing along ice sheets in a rocket powered sled trying to evade a Death Star-sequence sky beam outside of an ice palace that was all being operated by a man who had Face/Off surgery done. It was a level of absolute absurdity that strained credibility for the character and the universe. Enter Daniel Craig, a man few people were all that familiar with, taking up the mantle and the klaxons started firing "Remember when..." messages through our collective consciousness until that initial black and white scene started up and silenced everything.

Casino Royale brought credibility back to the franchise. It made James Bond a bonafide action, espionage, spy thriller. It gave us exactly what we had been missing. Craig stepped into the sights with a physicality and presence unlike anything before him. Sure, he could be sophisticated and wear the hell out of a suit, but for the first time we got a Bond that could really do some damage when the situation called for it. His brash take on the character lead to a perfect dynamic between himself and the always incredible (going to ignore Cats) Dame Judi Dench, quite possibly the only woman with the gravitas to put him in his place without having to lift a finger or raise an octave. We get the dark, mysterious Eva Green to completely flip the standard Bond girl motif and Mikkelsen providing villain perfection to balance the whole thing out. Beyond casting though, the film is wonderfully shot. It is just gorgeous at times and has a brilliant score to match it. The way the Bond theme is toyed with and worked toward is really something.

It sounds like I'm describing a perfect film but it does have one, unfortunately notable fault. Sure, you could argue that it's overlong, a little drawn out or slowly paced but I think those all fit the idea of the film so I'm not going to knock that. We could search for plot holes and likely find a bevy of them but find me a film of this nature without plot holes first and then we can talk. No, the real problem here is Return of the King syndrome. The movie just doesn't know when to end. We reach a point, a couple of them even, that feel like they would be natural, serviceable ending points but we push right passed them to go for this added on bit at the end that feels so tacked on and out of place with the rest of the film. If we could just cut that last portion this would be perfect. Maybe not even cut it but tighten it up because it just feels... Sloppy compared to everything else.

Still, a questionable ending doesn't ruin what is arguably one of the great action/adventures of the last 20 years. A film that managed to undo what felt like irreparable damage done by the previous installment and came out with guns blazing and ready to redefine the whole genre. Kudos, Mr. Bond. Kudos.
9/10
excellent
Scotthannaford115 November 2006
Now - we are aware of the www.craigisnotbond.com or whatever the hell it was who criticised Daniel Craig unfairly: (1) the film had not been made (2) Craig has an excellent acting resume (3) they had not read any original 007 books and didn't understand how much Craig looks like the JB of the books (4) the editor of the website admitted to not watching the James Bond movies but just thought Pierec was lovely (which he is) (5) Pierce has a contract for three movies with an option of a fourth - he made four (6) Pierce is 53 for goodness sake - he is too old, despite being the best Bond of all!

I was lucky enough to see a preview, and the movie looks excellent. Yes, a lot of product placement, but you need that to help fund the production. Not the best Bond film (I think that still rests with Lazenby, who is the worst Bond, but OHMSS was the best film), but a very good movie at that.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
No Bond at all
HarryPX2 August 2007
Good Film, good camera, good directing, good Daniel, but ugly an no James Bond, not now not ever not for me!

I don t want to be like this guy, and thats the difference between all the other Bonds. He is not so rough at all, see Licence to kill, or The world is not enough, my favorites!

Sorry Daniel, but even Lazenby and Rowan Atkinson are more Bond than your Streetworker Bond, a Bond who stands beside the action (first scene after Pre-Title) ... Its not even an English Anti-Hero anymore!

every generation has its Bond: I wait for the next... or let him die!

The producers don't have any ideas anymore, let him go to Australia, to Africa, let him see the world again.

Bye Bond!
10/10
A cut above the rest
zephyravictrix24 November 2006
Casino Royale has got it right. A fast paced story ran, jumped, exploded and shot across the screen. Yep, the tech was there, but in it's proper place, _supporting_ the script, _not_ in-your-face! Of course, Bond still has his encounters with the ladies. Again, they are more plausible than in previous movies.

Previous Bond films have been overshadowed by the 'here are the gadgets' routine and a tired formula, which was becoming increasingly difficult to rejuvenate - 'Die Another Day' is a prime example. The formula is still there in Casino Royale, but it's been turned on its head! The fresh approach has stayed true to the spirit of the original books more fully than any of the other Bond films. Daniel Craig brings out the 'darker side' of Bond very well.

I came out of the cinema wanting to see the film again, and wanting to see the next one too! And I really, _really_ hope the studio/franchise sees sense and keeps the current Bond for at least the next five movies!
8/10
Daniel Craig sets the defies and sets the standard for a new Bond.
shadowman12312 May 2008
I was a huge fan of Pierce Brosnan as Bond and was actually ever disappointed when I felt that he had been unfairly screwed out of his Bond role. However when Daniel Craig was going to take over the role I was a bit adamant about it as although he was good actor I don't feel he was the ideal role for James Bond and I guess thats what really but me of watching Casino Royale. However yesterday as I got ready to watch it I was glad to say that Casino Royale lives up to its hype and delivers on all levels. Craig set the new standard for which Bond which I guess in a way all Bond fans have been waiting to see. I can't remember seeing a Bond so cold since ...Timothy Dalton's performance in A License to Kill , Craig has simply taken the smooth talking ladies man who played by the rules , torn the book the book up and has given us somebody who feeds of his ego and does not hesitate to kill but then in some perverse way . he likes it. The action from start to finish was brilliant with Craig as the no nonsense Bond who stops at nothing to get to his target. Although there are very gadgets the movie has plenty going for it in the use of action scenes and gun fights. The villains were pretty sinister in a non-romantic sense which was fine. My only complaint was that showing the depth of 007 may of slowed the movie down in places but it kept on going to the ending in which Craig stylishly shows the haters who is the new Bond. To conclude , Casino Royale is a boost to what was slowly turning into stale series and is a welcome return to the Bond which I guess most of us have been waiting to see for a while.

CASINO ROYALE - 8.6 OUT OF 10

EVERYONE HAS A PAST. EVERYONE HAS A BEGINNING. ON NOVEMEBER 17 DISCOVER HOW JAMES..BECAME BOND
10/10
Best Bond Movie Yet!
g-bodyl9 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I think that this Bond movie is the best of all the Bond movies. Just like Batman Begins, Casino Royale regenerates the Bond series in a positive way. Daniel Craig is definitely the best choice to play Bond. He looked right for the role and I like the way he played Bond. In Casino Royale, Bond has to stop a terrorist organization and to do that, he plays card games. This is a butt-kicking, non-stop action thriller avid actions fans have been waiting for. Judi Dench returns as her role as "M". She is a bit more creepy, but she still performs her role well. The acting was great, the screenplay was great, and the score kept you in your seats anticipating on what will happen next. The visual effects were simply amazing. Overall, this is one of the best films you will ever see. You should go and see it! I rate this beauty a 10/10.
10/10
Oh... my... god... Thank you for this new and reinvented Bond!
Anton_Klink11 April 2007
If you've seen any, better yet, all of the Bond movies, then you know what to expect when you go to see another installment of the franchise - the wise-cracking one-liners, the always perfect hair, the gadgets that border on the ridiculous, larger than life villains and their evil world domination plans, disposable bond-girls, "shaken, not stirred" and of course, the spectacular finish, where everything explodes and collapses.

Yeah. Go expect that. And be blown away. For I certainly was. Honestly, this is not just the best Bond movie I've ever seen (and yes, I've seen them all), this in my opinion is one of the best action movies I've ever seen period. And a very, very welcomed reinvention of the whole saga.

So what's different? For starters now we have a short and blonde Bond, since that is what Daniel Craig certainly is. An abomination you say? That's what I thought as well, until I saw the movie that is. In light of Craig's performance though it becomes apparent that Bond doesn't need to be tall, dark and "handsome" at all. Craig takes the caricature of what Bond had become and gives it a completely new, revitalized substance.

I do remember when Pierce Brosnan used to talk about making Bond more human. Unfortunately he never got around to it (though no doubt a decision of the producers rather than his). The Bond of Craig however is as human as he is tough (and believe me, he is plenty tough). Unlike previous Bonds, who mostly only cruised through even the most dangerous of situations without breaking much of a sweat, Craig sweats, bleeds and hesitates like anyone would. Yet he is still heads and tails above all the pretty-boy Bonds of the past or as the character played by Eva Green so aptly put it: "Even if all that's left of you is your smile and your little finger, you'd still be more of a man than anyone I've ever met".

Which brings us to the female lead of Eva Green, who is anything but another disposable bond-girl. Smart, witty, tough yet frail and in my opinion the one of the most beautiful beautiful girls ever featured in a Bond movie, both her presence and her dialogues with Bond are some of the highlights of the movie.

The story will keep you guessing and assumes you actually have a few functional brain-cells, the main villain is wonderfully sinister but not over the top where he become laughable, the suspense is played out perfectly and the action is exactly what you'd expect from a true Bond movie and not another "action comedy".

In conclusion, whereas previous Bond movies were increasingly becoming forgettable "action" comedies, which kept moving through the compulsory scenes of the comic-relief Q and his gadgets, the cardboard Bond and his impeccable hair, the bumbling Moneypenny and her futile flirting, the improbable final action with explosions and collapsing (well actually you still get that, but it's not what you expect) and all the other clichés we've seen to the point of total boredom, this new Bond is a raw, gritty and tough action movie with a perfect blend of suspense and yes, human emotions, added to the mix. It is a human Bond - and as such, a very welcome one.

So all I can do is thank the producers, writers, director and cast for this completely reinvented Bond - a very welcomed update for the 21st century of this great franchise.
9/10
Mostly quite good, but unfortunately not the perfect film everyone's been saying it is
wellthatswhatithinkanyway23 December 2006
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

With the latest Bond film, with a new look and a new Bond (Daniel Craig) having run out of new films to make, we've gone right back to the beginning, as Bond makes the first two kills necessary to become a 00. Meanwhile, the villain Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson) a brilliant but corrupt banker takes some money from a Ugandan terrorist group to invest in an act of terror that will shock the world. But things don't go to plan (on account of Bond) and he is forced to compete in a high stakes poker tournament at the titular Casino Royale in Montenegroe in order to win the money to pay off the deadly criminals who have lost money- but, once again, Bond, with the aid of beautiful but canny MI6 agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is on hand to stop him.

I read a little letter that was sent to the Daily Mirror a few weeks ago that mentioned how years ago a new Bond film was just something to go and see to have a good time to but nowadays there was so much hype and publicity surrounding the release of a new film that it was as if your life depended on going to see it and that people should grow up. With all the build-up to the release of this new film, I can certainly see what they meant and felt something niggling inside me when the film had been out for a few weeks and I still hadn't got round to seeing it. What seemed worse was all the people raving about it and how left out I'd feel if I found faults in it. Well, I've tried my best to be as positive as I can about Casino Royale (and there is quite a bit to be happy about) but it's not as if I didn't notice the faults as well.

Starting on a high note, Craig is a fine Bond, and following all the tension as to whether he'd cut the mustard in the role, it's quite relieving to see he more than measures up to the role. The supporting cast are up to the mark too, Green a sexy and intelligent Bond girl, and Mikkelson a convincing and cold villain. As well as them, we have Martin Campbell, who also directed another (superior) Bond film Goldeneye, back in the director's seat, which is re-assuring but undelivering. The film can also boast some quite spectacular cinematography as the camera swoops over the gorgeous hills and seas of Montenegroe.

Being an action film, though, it should also boast some great, spectacular action scenes, and there simply aren't enough of these, with too many talky scenes going on as the action takes place during the poker game at the casino which starts to bore a bit after a while. It also suffers from an ending with too much tacked on and which drags on a bit as a result.

The film could have been a bit better paced and even a bit better edited, but there are a lot of positive things to write home about and Craig has certainly made an impact as the new Bond, and I look forward to his next (hopefully even better) adventure. ****
9/10
Welcome Back Mr. Bond!
dantheman005613 August 2007
I've seen almost all of the Bond films from Dr. No to Die Another Die. Although every Bond Era has had its highs and lows ( except for "Her Majesty's Secret Service" that was just terrible) lately the Pierce Bronsan era has put The Bond series in the gutter. Well Daniel Craig and James Bond first 00 mission brings Bond back up to the big leagues. Casino Royale takes place as James Bond first mission as he travels across Europe fighting just about everyone with hand to hand combat, guns, explosions, and more guns. Daniel Craig is a perfect Bond and Eva Green plays the role as Vesper awesome. The surprise twist at the end is great and really sets up the beginnings of Bond. A great movie can't wait for the rest of Craig's movies as Bond.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Good but Untraditional
moussa_akkaoui2 December 2006
The movie as a whole is interesting to watch but I believe that many people might agree with the fact that Daniel Craig does not portray Bond's character as did Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan. Craig does not have the same "British charm" as the others, he is more comedic and harder to take seriously.

Also many changes made in the movie move away from the traditional Bond films, such as the intro, or the fact that Bond plays Texas Hol'em instead of baccarat. Also, many people enjoy seeing the equipment that lie in Bond's vehicle which is taken away in this movie.

Finally, the fact that this movie uses the latest technology today and yet portrays Bond's beginnings as 007 does not really mix well considering most people who watch James Bond Movies would know the period in which Bond becomes 007 is much less technologically advanced than today.
9/10
Bond Month #21: Wow! What a Great Bond Film!!!
Theflyace28 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Before I talk about this extraordinary film, I'll give you a little background on the feeling of Bond at the time. 9/11 happened a couple of months before Die Another Day. That movie was viewed as lame and not the kind of Bond people felt was appropriate anymore. The question became, How to make Bond relevant in the post 9/11 environment? Casino Royale is the answer to this question. It is smart, tense, emotional, and above all, real. This is one of the finest in the series, so let me try to say my piece about it.

The plot comes right back to the espionage that made Bond famous, but of course with the modern twist on it. People have joked that you can put "Bond Begins" as the title, as if it was similar to Batman Begins. Well, it is his origin story, before he becomes the Bond we all know today. Heck this was the first Bond book ever written, yet somehow the 21st movie made. Hollywood politics for you, but I don't care, its a fantastic reboot.

Newly minted Agent 007 James Bond has to track down and bring to justice a broker named Le Chiffre, who supplies terrorists with money by destroying the competition. In order to bankrupt Le Chiffre and extort protection by MI6, Bond has to beat him an a poker tournament. Bond however is monitored by British banker Vesper Lynd, who Bond falls in love with, I think.

The acting in this movie is absolutely top notch. Daniel Craig, the first blond-haired Bond, is spectacular as Bond. He is the most physical and most intense Bond, but unlike Timothy Dalton, has the perfect blend of intensity and humor. He is a hard man who often doesn't like his job, but has some strange over-sense of loyalty to MI6 and M, played again by Judi Dench. Vesper joins my list of Tracy and Natalya as my absolute favorite Bond girls of all time. She is so smart and beautiful that it would be hard not to like her at all. She is also very complex and its revealed that there is more than her icy and controlled exterior. Le Chiffre is also a different kind of villain, he wants money, but that is because he is in debt and doesn't want to die. That's why his eye leaks blood, its when he feels anxious or when he is bluffing. This aspect initially seems over the top, but it seems real as it goes.

There is of course action. This action is beyond insanely amazing. We have an awesome opening with dangerously high jumps across construction cranes and rooftops, and then a great truck chase on an airport tarmac, and a huge fight in a sinking Venice house at the end. The action is truly a wonder to behold. They are nicely shot and edited, so everything is in focus.

This movie is truly amazing piece of cinema, and does what a movie should do. It presents amazingly written characters, and exquisite direction to give us an engrossing story for us to invest in. Even those who don't get poker, especially me, even those scenes give us enough understanding as to what is going on in the minds of those involved.

There are actually two scenes that I see as two of the best scenes in any movie.

1) After a brutal fight that Vesper had to become involved in, she is in shock and sits in the cold shower an tries to wash of the blood. Bond sits in and joins her, warms up the water and she puts her head in his shoulder. That is so romantic but it is not overdone at all and Craig sells a very compassionate side of Bond.

2) After the tournament, Bond and Vesper are kidnapped, and Bond is tortured. It is lifted directly from Fleming's book, but is updated to a rusty ship and a knotted rope to hit Bond's family jewels. This proved to audiences that Craig certainly had balls of steel for the role of Bond (every pun intended)

Martin Campbell came back to direct the movie and I am so happy he did. Just like GoldenEye, he had his own modern ideas of what should be done with a Bond film, and executes everything beautifully. But the writers have an amazing contribution to the story. There is actually a genuine plot twist that I won't dream of revealing and actually improves a problem I had with the original book. Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and newcomer Paul Haggis really updated this for all audiences.

I absolutely loved this movie when I saw it in 2006, and so did a lot of critics. it will go down in history as one of the best Bonds out there.

This signaled the fresh new era of Bond, RRRIIIIGGGHHHHTTTT before Quantum of Solace comes along two years later, yeah that one was obviously coming. Brace yourselves, the review will not be kind to it.
5/10
not bond at all
blakesoprito27 March 2008
When this movie first came out on DVD. i was really excited about seeing it because i'm a big fan of James Bond films. My dad rented it and we watched it. Daniel Craig looked he was gonna be a pretty good Bond Actor but after I watched this movie I wasn't very impressed by his performance. He wasn't a bad actor he just wasn't as smooth as all the other Bonds. The black and white opening scene was OK but i've seen better. The Chase scene in Madagascar was kind of exciting but after that i started to get bored. So I'm sure Daniel Craig we'll be really good in other movies but i would not want to see him in another James Bond Movie.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good movie, great Bond movie, not my favorite though
realalexrice8 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The performance from Craig and sleek set pieces are welcome to this modern-era reboot of our current Bond, but I feel the updated editing ultimately detracts and fights against the film in so many scenes. Seems like they had a boatload of coverage they wanted to use, and in some scenes (i.e. When Bond is poisoned), it works in favor of the film. But often it detracts, and would only get worse in Quantum (which I'm cautiously optimistic about revisiting). I'm also not a fan of the Mathis commentary during the game of cards that takes up the majority of the second act, especially as I've watched this more and more over the years; the dealer literally explains the end results at the end of the significant hands.

Despite my criticisms that I hadn't particularly thought of until this viewing, this is still one of the top Bond films and Craig proved himself an absolutely worthy contender for the best Bond after only one film. The action is the best of the Craig era and the story is the smartest mix of the classic and modern elements within the series. The story is actually emotional as it leads up to and peaks with Vesper and Bond's torture, easily one of the most disturbing and haunting scenes in the series. Preceded by one of the best looking car stunts and an intentionally nauseating (and effective) handheld/jump cut sequence of Le Chiffre's henchmen dragging Bond to the car before cutting the tracker out of his arm. I also love the third act and how insane it truly is with what it packs into, essentially, a couple of montages and an action set piece followed by a pretty memorable ending and "victory" for Bond, nicely it's one of the only Bond flicks to not end with him on top of a woman. But regarding the third act: it's all quite over the top, but it really is not nearly as dumb as it could be, especially if in the hands of a lesser director. Martin Campbell just seems to really understand what the general viewing public likes about Bond. In this incarnation, he understood Bond much better as an assassin and a blunt object, proving to be a double-edged sword in a world marred by surveillance.

After watching and rewatching many of these Bond films for the past year or so, I think I can say that many of the first entries for Bond actors stumble, but this one doesn't and continues to hold up nearly 15 years on.
1/10
Casino Royale is awful
juggernaut21826 November 2006
Hi anyone curious as to what they've done with the 007 franchise beware!!! this film is awful and the main man has been replaced with a man so ugly when he smiles people vomit! what was thinking behind putting such an ugly man in such an iconic role?? lets scare children and adults??? the film itself starts off in a thrilling manner with a free running chase up some scaffolding and building works , but the film makers couldn't even be bothered with employing a stunt man who looked even slightly like the ugly wretch they got to play 007, (suppose it was too hard finding someone so ugly?) the film then degenerates as the main plot revolves around the playing of a poker game!! how interesting is that you ask? very very boring!! i mean they could have got the new bond girl to walk round naked to keep us awake but no!! even she sits in the corner bored to tears waiting for the excruciating finale to the poker game.

they try to liven up the game with a short action sequence before going back to the poker but i knew their game and it didn't raise interest in this innocent viewer.

this much lauded gadget free edition has gadgets in the form of a car that is also a portable hospital so the people that advertised this were blatant liars.

just when you think the film has been wrapped up the cheeky baskets add more plot lines to make us endure more awful , boring , tedious story telling I should have walked out of this film for being so crap but i didn't despite my partner begging me as i was hoping something special might happen...it didn't , thanks a lot you James bond franchise murderers! even the opening song was awful but at least that mad cow Madonna wasn't allowed near it in conclusion this film is the worst I've seen this year and if your thinking I've got some time to kill and might as well watch it don't! please! just for me? Ta for listening
5/10
Not the bond I want to see
shahmatt27 November 2006
There have been a lot of mixed reviews about this film. Some have said that Daniel Craig could be likened with Sean Connery, with his cold edged approach. That's perhaps true, to an extent. Daniel Craig does exhibit a certain coldness, and he does have the charisma, but he did not show the quick wit Connery became known for. I disagree with Daniel Craig as the new Bond, and I disagree with the new style they've made for the Bond franchise.

Casino Royale is an old fashioned movie. It could have been filmed in the 60's or 70's as there was hardly anything modern about it. A woeful sprinkling of gadgets, and computers, which I think was done deliberately, in order to focus the movie on the characters, rather than the environment. This might have worked if Daniel Craig was a better actor, but he's not. He shows almost no emotion throughout the entire movie, almost as if his face was incapable of changing into a genuine smile. Perhaps he was asked to act that way, if so, it was a mistake. Bond was never really supposed to be emotionless, cold perhaps, but he did smile, and act human, which is why he was such a great spy: he acted natural. Daniel Craig could have been a robot, and his manner screamed I'm up to no good. And added by the fact that whatever he said was more of a mumble than actual words, it was dreadful that women sort of gravitated towards him. Correct me if i'm wrong, but even though Bond is supposed to be good looking, didn't personality do something to attract those stunning bond girls? Craig doesn't have much in terms of dialog either, I suppose 90% of what he said could be found in IMDb's movie quotes. In short, the new Bond lacks character, wit, and charm. To his credit, he has the build, and looks silly when running (which was something I found to console myself by as the movie progressed).

I disagree with the style of the movie. Why did the Bond franchise have to go back in time? I mean, this is the 21st century, we could afford to see a few more gadgets in the Bond franchise. Brosnan's lot was chockful of delicious gadgets that were entertaining and interesting, and breached into the modern era. Why couldn't this Bond have some of that? This backward thinking is boring. I also noticed that the chase scenes were far too long. The first one was interesting, the chap running away looked almost inhuman with his escape tactics. All right, that was fun, move on to something else that's interesting, but no, they came up with another chase sequence, and another later on, which dragged painfully. It wasn't just the action, even the romance was overly extended, and with a minimum of conversation too, it was too quiet. Eva Green is gorgeous, but she's on display so much that it becomes tiresome, and by the end of it I wished she would just go away. The ending was somewhat cliché as well. You'll see, the penultimate scene brings so much peace and serenity that had absolutely NO business belonging in a Bond movie. You knew about the impending disaster, you could feel it coming, it was boring.

When I watch a Bond movie, I expect to be entertained in some way. Bond, obviously, has to carry most of the burden by exhibiting something about a special man. Charm?, wit? (NIL), dialogue (very little). Good story? (Possibly, but still underdeveloped). Gadgets? (forget it), Humor (NIL). A future for a new Bond? I hope not.

Casino Royale is empty, of everything. Go watch it if you have to know what Bond should NOT have become.
10/10
Simply the best
galensaysyes28 October 2008
To begin with, I'd like to echo what a lot of other people have said: that this is the best Bond movie ever, with the best Bond--and also, I would add, the best Bond girl; or woman, rather. It's not only a good Bond movie, it's good independently of that label, which probably can't be said of any of the others after the first two. I'd hoped the producers would return to the start of the cycle redo all the other novels with the same flair and bite; this hope was probably naive.

I've become convinced that a lot of movies, especially those belonging to popular forms, can be boiled down to a small number of essentials, or one essential, that conveys the intended experience more strongly than the whole does. Take, for instance, the Hammer horror films of the 50s and 60s. They can be boiled down to one film, the first: Christopher Lee's premiere appearance as Dracula. The film can be boiled down to its musical score, and the score can be boiled down to one phrase: the three-note "Dracula" signature, as first heard over the name Dracula on his casket. That's the basic experience of the movie, and it only takes a few seconds. The rest just approximates to it in varying degrees.

And so with the Bond series. It can be boiled down to the first (or any of the others, for that matter), and that can be boiled down in turn the opening view through a gunsight--a view to a kill--and the playing of the Bond theme. None of the movies ever matched that music. Casino Royale is the first one that tries, or appears to try, to expand the effect of the theme into the movie and sustain it for two and a half hours. And it comes as close as any movie could (possibly excepting North by Northwest).

It does have a few faults. Most obviously, it's too long by a half hour; and I know just the two climaxes that comprise that half hour. Omitting them would improve the movie--but I don't know what would be put in their places. Also, one of Bond's lines, in a bar, is so esoteric that after half a dozen hearings I still don't understand it. But those are the only complaints.

Daniel Craig isn't a Bond we expect, but is all the more interesting for that. He has a "clipped, puzzled-idealist brutality" appropriate to the enlarged and improved version of Bond he gets to play. The quotation suits him to a T--but remarkably, it's an old description of Cary Grant when he played a secret agent in Notorious; and it will be remembered that he was the producers' first choice for Bond. In Casino Royale they have given Craig the scenes, to which he brings the ability, to enable him to make Bond into a rounded character. There's a lot going on inside him. One clever tactic the actor uses is to base his character's movements on parkour, especially in one scene where he searches a room by moving into, over, and out of it in the swiftest possible manner.

A characteristic of Craig's that helps him here, and which he shares with a lot of other Scottish actors: is that he's always on firm ground, wherever he is. You never doubt that he's in the place he's supposed to be, and that you're there with him. The Golden Compass, for instance, seemed to be drifting until Craig strode in and anchored it (then a few minutes later he strode out again and the film resumed drifting). Here he does the same whenever he's in view--which is almost all the time--and convinces you of what's happening, however fantastic it may appear.

He is aided immeasurably by having a fully drawn heroine opposite him. Unlike most Bond films, this one is a two-handed game. The woman brings him out, and he does the same for her. Eva Green was a great casting choice as his partner: assured but vulnerable, practical but romantic. The way in which we become acquainted with her parallels our getting to know Bond all over again. She begins as the stock Bond girl, and gains dimension until she, probably even more than Bond, is the character we most want to see, and to try to figure out.

The script is similarly generous to Judi Dench as M, who gives by far her best performance in a Bond film--not only because she has a strong arc to play but has also, in the new Bond, a character to truly contend against. The producers have reinvigorated the franchise with complete success.

I had been looking forward to the follow-up movie, but now that it's on the horizon I feel somewhat apprehensive. At bottom, Casino Royale has the simple, appealing story idea of the novel, which was a "hook" for the audience; I can't see that the sequel has one. CR is a little bit fantastic--albeit less so than most of the other Bonds--and I can't see that if the sequel is. I have a sinking feeling that the producers are wanting to turn the Bond series into something that better befits our more prosaic times: something like Robert Ludlum maybe? I hope they don't intend to jettison the Fleming influence entirely. I want to more movies just like this one.

It was worth waiting forty-five years for.
1/10
worst Bond movie ever
purekosu25 November 2006
I still can't see why it have such a great rating here, it's the worst Bond movie, it's like they put James Bond in Miami Vice, no dialog, long and boring, no action, nothing. It's nothing about James Bond, and where are the hot bond girls? who knows?

I see that a lot of people thinks that it's a great movie, but why? even if I repeat, it's too LONG AND BORING AND IT HAVE NO ACTION, it's like someone wrote in the reviews, watching the World Championship Poker on ESPN, again too long and too boring.

Where is the old James Bond? Why is this movie related to the James Bond series?
16 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wrong screenplay,average executing,but Daniel was quite good.
board-521 April 2007
Hard to rate this film,but Daniel Craig is not guilty.The screenplay has many used elements,twists,and there is lot of time without story.The concept was less action scene , more love and drama.The story is very easy,and the director left the youngest screenplay version to shoot.The trailer has almost the better action scenes.Daniel Craig plays very good,but there is the question is this character really James Bond or just the assassin of the queen.The story sometimes very very calculable,and turn to be a comedy.Eva Green is rather interesting, or strange for a Bond story,but plays well the character,specially she's last scene was very difficult,but she did it well.I think the guilty is Barbara Broccoly,who wanted to make a more American Bond character like Brosnan was,but many people liked this new.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great James Bond, Daniel Craig IS James Bond.
dobbin-421 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I think that just about every poster on IMDb since this movie came out 2 years ago has noted that even though people doubted Daniel Craig as a good James Bond, he has proved in sensational fashion that he is a very worthy advisory to the James Bond list of actors. As we see this new James Bond we must look back and see how different the James Bond films are with every new actor, there was George Lazenby whose movie as J.B is not looked as at a great success, Roger Moore who brought the character some weird movies (Moonraker probably the most out there for story lines), Timothy Dalton who showed a darker bond, Pierce Brosnan who is a great bond especially his first film golden eye, but now we have an actor is has brought a more Sean Connery atmosphere to the Bond genre, and has completely revamped it at the same time.

The movie itself is extremely good. The film is a heavy competer for the best ever Bond film and the way it is shot is very good. The film never fills boring even through its 2 and a half hour time period and really shows layers to James Bond that were not previously there. Also the ending is spectacular and I did not see it coming. That is also why he goes for revenge in the second film. The side characters are quite good too, from the eye bleeding bad guy, the new bond girl or M, the one who tries desperately to stop Bond being Bond. Anyway it is that depth with its characters and actors and seems to hold up well. This is definitely a movie people who think the James Bond series has gone down the hole in the past few years will enjoy immensely.

Overall, Daniel C. is a great edition to the James Bond team and I hope he is here to stay, I look forward to seeing "Quantom Of Solace" today and I hope it is as good as this one. I rate this 84%.
8/10
The new James Bond doesn't disappoint! In fact, he's easily the best one out of the lot!
AdrenalinDragon16 November 2006
Now, I've been waiting for a new James Bond movie to come out for four years. When I first saw Die Another Day, it was rather lame. Just focusing on high-tech gadgets and action scenes didn't cut it out for me. But then, in 2006 Casino Royale comes out and blows me away!

I was a bit sceptical about Daniel Craig having the new role as James Bond,since I really thought Pierce Brosnan did an amazing job as James Bond and I didn't think he could be beaten. Then, I saw this movie, and realised he's the true James Bond! Yep, better than Sean Connery,Roger Moore, and even Pierce Brosnan!

Yes, you can expect to see some action scenes and Bond moves (and talks) but the one thing I really liked about this movie over the recent Bond films is that they didn't overdo the gadgets. They stuck with a few realistic gadgets and some rather flash cars (but not too stupid, e.g invisible cars in Die Another Day) but it was all realistic and felt like Bond in the early days.

Make no mistake, this is a long movie. There's quite a few action scenes and some interesting scenes to link up with the plot (e.g Bond playing poker at the Casino Royale) but it's never boring and you'll never get tired of it. Bond really has some moves in this movie and he's always entertaining. The plot is simple, yet gets complicated. Bond must stop a Banker from winning a Poker match in order to stop the funding of terrorist activity. To be honest, you'll probably need to see this movie more than once to link everything up together.

So, there you have it. Casino Royale is one of the biggest successes in the Bond franchise so far. I'm looking forward to seeing Daniel Craig in more Bond movies, and I'm sure he's the best James Bond so far. So, if you want a good Bond movie or want some high entertainment and action scenes, then see Casino Royale. You won't be disappointed.
9/10
Brilliant!
general-melchett26 November 2006
I thought the new Bond looked bad at first - but it has well and truly proved me wrong. Though the acting is good but not special, the film is packed to the brim with intense stylized action scenes, high-tech gadgets and gripping chases. The reason why this is far better than Die Another Day is because it is made on a substantially smaller scale, and is far more gripping, dangerous, well-written and universally enjoyable. Bond is well and truly back - the casino scenes were hugely well-done - they showed an almost expert knowledge of poker and gambling and really left your heart in your mouth. The best scenes in this film - Bond dices with death in the casino, a whole building sinks into a river (in a city which is quite a homage to Moonraker) and Bond engages with a thrilling chase which takes us high above the ground in metal cranes. Casino Royale is more than just action mania - it is a gripping addition to Bond's legacy and one that finally brings Bond into the 21st century in a worthy way.

The new Bond is very long - but I like longer films. Younger kids will certainly get a fright, but this film is far more unpredictable and well-done than Die Another Day - my only slight flaw is that it became quite hard to piece together by the end. Despite being humiliated by Happy Feet at the box office, Casino Royale is certainly one that will be a smash hit this Winter. Bravo! 9/10
3/10
Seriously what was that all about??
bovtrgdisclk17 November 2006
I went to the cinema expecting one of the best bond films ever after so much hype and brilliant trailers! I was extremely disappointed! It was not classic bond! I know you're supposed to cast your mind back to the beginning and believe that he is just establishing himself but it just didn't seem right! Craig is not a good bond! The fight scenes are believable because he gives off this vibe of being genuinely hard but he was too robotic and not suave like you would expect James Bond to be! I came out wondering what the hell the film was actually about and what he had gained and it was just a blur! Characters came in and out of the film without you actually realising their purpose and it just didn't seem to tie together! Sorry Bond fans!!!
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I just wish that Clooney had been cast as Bond
hobbyhob18 November 2006
Yes, this is a fine movie, but to me, Craig is simply NOT believable as James Bond. I mean, blonde Bond?!? Come on! Personally, I think George Clooney was born to the role (yet, I've NO idea whatsoever if the role was offered to him or if he'd even be interested in playing it). Clooney would be the perfect blend of Sean Connery's rugged yet sophisticated manner, coupled with Roger Moore's good looks (yes, I prefer the old school Bond, although Pierce Brosnan was perfectly likable as 007). I will always watch the Bond films, regardless of who plays the role; it's just that I'd possess a whole lot more enthusiasm for the film if I agreed with the casting choice for our favorite Bollinger sipping, martini swilling secret agent. I do hope the powers that be will re-think their casting choice. Lastly, and I say this sincerely, Mr. Craig, I mean you no offense, for I think you are a very talented actor and have enjoyed a number of your films.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Abomination
Littlecrisk17 November 2006
I do not know where to begin. I could critique the fact that there was no; Money Penny, Q, Gadgets, plot, significant villain, resolution, or an exiting sex scene. Maybe the director and/or producer felt that these were meaningless and was not necessary in a 007 - "Bond, James Bond" film. There were however two good things about the movie which was the unveiling of the Aston Martin DB S, which can stopped with all sorts of cool stuff such as a DEFIBRILLATOR!? The other good thing was that the movie ended. I don't normally get involved in writing reviews but Casino Royale was an abomination of the James Bond Legend. All I can say is that he falls in love...and not as a cover....I'm serious. I know you're thinking James Bond doesn't fall in love: Well, welcome to Casino Royale - THE WORST JAMES BOND MOVIE ever to grace the big screens presence and I am ashamed that I had to see it.
17 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
No Sex Appeal in Daniel Craig
annmurphy30 November 2006
Sorry...everyone else seems to really like Daniel Craig as James Bond; but I didn't. James Bond is English, a gentleman and a charmer. Craig's Bond was none of these. This Bond wasn't even likable. I couldn't fathom how Solange or Vesper Lynd should have found him attractive because he didn't even flirt with them. Somehow, his scenes with them lacked sparks. To me, he had no sex appeal. Also, while M seemed to be fond of Bond there was no justification for it in the movie. Was it mother instinct or a sexual attraction to a younger man? We had no basis to guess. With her he was truculent and rude. I just didn't discern any warmth in this Bond. He could as easily have been an android. Also, thought Craig was overly bulked up on the shoulder muscles…somehow it didn't look natural. The original Bond would not have been so obviously muscular. Apart from that, the movie was okay.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
1000/10
busstwilliam21 April 2020
Flawless movie in my opinion. Just fantastic , absolutely amazing film and that's all i'm gonna say.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good spy film but what about Bond?!!!
ccjameshenry17 November 2006
We've all been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Casino Royale, the first James Bond movie after a four year gap since Die Another Day, especially without Pierce Brosnan and the excitement of a new 007.

The creators behind the film have tried so hard to make this Bond film different they have effectively removed what we all loved about Bond in the first place; the way he says "Shaken not stirred", the car chases, the theme tune and the girls (there simply aren't enough).

Firstly, the plot is a mess; it is over complicated and unclear; names are not properly presented so by the end of the film I found myself unsure as to who Vesper really was (luckily the credits cleared that up). The villain is not properly developed and the beloved theme tune is not used until the end credits? Furthermore, where is our beloved Q and his gadgets? Where is Moneypenny? Nowhere to be seen is the answer.

However, some credit must go to Daniel Craig who does give a far better performance as Bond than Pierce Brosnan could ever have hoped to. He is more sinister, more mysterious and arrogant; quite frankly better and more entertaining. There are gripping action sequences as well as some impressive stunts but I could not help feeling that I had been short-changed: yes it's a good spy film but it's not the Bond we have all grown to love.
9/10
Intense Action
JoelChamp8521 March 2021
The filmmakers offer us a masterclass in action scenes in this well crafted reinvention of the unstoppable force that is 007. With a great cast to back him up, the series has probably never felt so real, but still keeping the intensity and heart of what the franchise is about.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Overall a weak film. Craig is no Bond!
boxerdoug1 December 2007
Overall a weak film. Belongs on self next to the other Casino Royale (1967) this move is a farce also. Craig is no Bond! Not even close. Bond is a smart-ass, not this dry humorless twit in this film. Dalton tried to make Bond serious, he sucked too. Connery IS Bond, Brosnon did him justice. Moore's film were hilarious so he gets a pass. Do I even mention Lazenby?

No cool gadgets, heck even I have a cell phone, whoopee!! Opening action was lame. Do they teach free running at MI-6? Poker scenes were not very well written, How often do 4 players go all in? How does never sound? No Q? Judy Dench is an unbelievable M. Locations were beautiful so that is OK.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solid Reboot
RDOwens31 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond was a staple of my youth. I watched all the Connery and Moore flicks. By the end of Moore's run, the series was tired. I was hopeful Pierce Bronson, who I always thought was a natural, would breathe life into the sagging franchise. Nope.

When the series was rebooted in 2006, I passed. I had moved on from Bond, not that I was ever a huge fan! Yesterday I downloaded all the Ian Fleming books onto my Kindle. I have decided to read them in order. I read Casino Royale. I enjoyed it. I then watched the 1967 film with Niven, Sellers, Allen, et al. It wasn't true to the story and was rather silly. I then decided to give this a whirl.

Worth it! First off, the reboot is fresh and exciting. While the Bond movie elements are there, this has a modern feel to it.

That could spell trouble for a story set amid the Cold War. The changes to the script to keep it fresh mainly worked. I would have preferred Baccarat to have remained instead of its replacement of Texas Hold'Em. Even so, the American cards looked odd set in Europe. Real poker cards would have been appreciated.

The story worked well. The ending was modified. It wasn't the worse change that could have been made, but Vesper did not need to be made whole. I did enjoy the non-suicide by pills angle. That was solid. I wasn't wild about how Mathis was handled. :( I like this version of the series, I think they did justice to the original story, and I look forward to the next one.
8/10
Who is Sean Connery?
iohefy-219 March 2007
I think that Sean Connery was the best James Bond that we have ever had, but I was impressed by the job that Daniel Craig did in this fine film. He is well built, rugged looked and certainly not pretty like so many of the previous James Bonds. I was impressed by his stunt work in the opening sequences if indeed that was him and not a stunt double. I love all the James Bond movies and see them as soon as they come to the big screen and this one is no exception. I look forward to the next one when ever it will be. Go see this movie, you will not be disappointed as a new star is born with Daniel Craig's performance as Agent 007 and you certainly will enjoy the special effects throughout this neat movie.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Bond movie at last!
Kryzak3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The best Bond movie I've seen (granted, I've only seen the more recent ones with Pierce Brosnan) so far. Amidst the doubt and attacks, Daniel Craig showed everyone that a blonde Bond can actually be fun, sexy, and exciting to watch. After 20+ films over the past few decades, this film reveals how James Bond became an agent and his early days. Some of the best lines include: Bartender: "Shaken or Stirred", Bond: "Who cares?" (or something like that).

The acting was good, plot suspenseful, and action was of course very exciting. Having poker as one of the main plot line doesn't hurt either (one of my current favorite hobbies)! So whether you're a 007 franchise fan or not, check out the movie, you will find it very enjoyable!
10/10
Best James Bond ever!
eev7622 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I just watched Casino Royale,

Awesome! Amazing movie!!! Best James Bond ever! I seen all James Bond movies, after watching last two movies (before Casino Royale 2006), I completely lost interest in James Bond and I didn't expect anything from Casino Royale. This movie brings new, better James Bond, its totally new 007, welcome 21 century Bond!!! Truly best James Bond, - 21 century Bond!

Down to earth movie, great acting, totally new great characters, shocking action, great quality movie, (great live footage no CG, despite I'm a CG artist for movies myself) stylish, I love colours of the movie, great sceneries; bond using just regular google web site, things like that gives more realistic sense for this movie.

Daniel Craig - is a stylish, who knows how to fight, he is a guy who doing his job and you don't want to mess around with him, tough, but smart, with light blue predators eyes; he is definitely a best Bond ever!!! The bond girl, Eva Green, is so different form other cheesy bond girls, smart with lots of personality, just look in her eyes, she is very interesting character; she always appears in beautiful dresses, she moves and act amazingly.

I was enjoyed great bond music, just got soundtrack for myself :) Beautiful titles animation was surprising and so different from before; crane scene was shocking - non stop action, with amazing acting and camera angles. A little too much poker in the middle of movie, GREAT ending!

10/10

AMAZING MOVIE, MUST SEE!!!
10/10
Superb !
janus-2019 November 2006
I'm not going to list every single reason why this film is so damn good, but to start with the exception of saying that Daniel Craig totally exceeded my expectations as Bond, his interpretation of 007 is just groundbreaking.

The stunts make your jaw drop, the thrills really do thrill and the poker game is a roller-coaster defeats and victories and one of the best elements is that the relationship between Bond and Vesper is not a superficial plot device but rather a truly engaging affair, which has emotional weight at its outcome.

I sincerely hope i will be saying the same thing about the next instalment as i am already looking forward to it. When you consider how many Bond films there have been, its astonishing to me how fresh and revitalised Casino Royale is, Bond is, without a shadow of doubt, back!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
That's entertainment
compugor14 February 2019
Daniel Craig brings 007 up to the Sean Connery level but modernized, even though not as gadgety. Craig's Bond has it all: the look, the physical prowess & toughness, the coolness, smartness etc. and delivers it perfectly. Mad Mikkelsen (Polar) is the perfect 007 franchise villain; the rest of the supporting cast brings it all together, including "M" and of course the obigatory eye candy ladies (tastefully presented without unnecessary nudity). This edition, being Casino Royale, adds the poker showdown element which is always exhilarating (a-la The Cincinnati Kid w/Steve McQueen & Edward G. Robinson). It even shows Bond vulnerable and falling in love which is short-lived and hardens him to go on with his license to kill. Lots of action & intrigue; well-presented screenplay with no expense spared on the effects. This makes it to the all-time favorites list.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Major Bummer
devonster17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So the movie begins to what I believed to be quite exciting and action packed. The first few scenes are really spectacular! However, the biggest problem with this movie, is that is pretty much all the action. For about half the film, you watch Bond play poker. Whoop-dee-doo. Eventually, there are scenes where he something occurs and he does some sweet action moves, but it's pretty much watching a group of rich men (and one old Chinese woman) play poker.

Like every Bond movie, this one has a car chase; however, this chase lasts about 15 seconds and it takes place in the country. Oh, how intense. Another missing part of this movie was Bond's gadgets supplied by Q. Yes I know this is meant to be the first one, so maybe he has no Q, but come on, at least put some cool gizmos. Guns and hands get old, fast.

So in conclusion, this so called "Bond" movie really strides away from the original concept with extreme action throughout the film, crazy gadgets, and Bond as a suave man-whore. The film was nonetheless interesting at parts; sort of dragged on within an hour into it with all the poker. And what you believe is the end never ceases, resulting in an overly dragged out ending having the movie take just way too much time.
8/10
Casino Royale - old dog director teaches ageing franchise some new tricks
cosmorados11 April 2009
Bond is promoted for mere agent and grunt to the status of Intelligence Officer at the beginning of this film as he complete's the two kills to earn the double "0" status. From here he is sent in search of a bomb-maker to attempt to discover who his backers are. After a disastrous start where Bond makes just about every mistake possible he finally makes amends and after resolving these earlier mistakes winds up in a high-powered winner takes all poker game with Terrorist banker Le Chiffre, who needs to recoup losses and win the potential 15o million euro's pot against some of the best players of the world.

So Bond returns (Or rather begins!) and if you believe the two sets of divulging reports on this site it was either the best bond ever, or the worst Bond ever, which may lead people to wonder how this could be? I had to admit when I first saw it, I was of mixed opinion to how I felt about it.

On the one hand the set pieces where dealt with admirably by the always capable Martin Campbell. The opening action piece through the building site and the entire Casino sequence were excellent, and the look of the film was stunning, and exactly what you'd expect from a Bond; Both of his main vehicles (I am not including a Ford Hire car) where just what was wanted and although the Villain was no Goldfinger, he was much more of a threat than Jonathan Pryce or Robert Carlisle's dismal villains in both "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World is not enough". Which then brings us to the main source of either delight or derision, which is Craig's performance.

For me, Daniel Craig proves all the detractors and smug journo's who wrote disparaging comments before, completely wrong. The more you watch this performance and his depiction of an agent, not supremely knowledgeable and smug like earlier depictions, but a newly promoted young man with a point to prove. This is effectively the young man in a hurry, trying to prove that his promotion was a worthwhile piece of judgement and not an error on the part of a boss at risk from enemies without and within. Because of that, this Bond is intense and exposed, all of his frailties are open, and all of his skills are raw, which makes for a far more exciting film than the bond's of so many films who is always so reliably infallible.

One of the other big problems for many is of course the product placement. Personally, I don't give a stuff what phone Bond uses, or the computer he types on, if they want to sponsor the film-makers with ridiculous amounts of money for these things just to be seen in the move then let them. The sponsor I found purposely funny was the Amiga watch and the comments around it within the film. When his watch was being discussed in the film it was done in the context of the expensive things that he wears not because he wants to, but because he has to, as part of him being arrogant and showy, rendering any kind of product placement useless.

Overall this Bond is one that has grown on me hugely over time and I think in the same way that "On her Majesty's Secret Service" is regarded as one of the finest Bond films of the series, "Casino Royale" has now firmly established itself for the current crop of Bond fans and unlike it's predecessor "Die Another Day" it has aged wonderfully well.

A bond worth always worth another shot.
9/10
Craig's First Mission with MI-6 is a Tough, Expectation-Shattering Endeavor
drqshadow-reviews21 January 2013
Bond's essential 21st century reboot is expertly orchestrated and potently thrilling, although I wonder if it may have pressed itself a bit too far in an effort to feel contemporary. The parkour and hold'em scenes in particular already feel out-of-touch, with both fads freshly occupying the rear-view mirror, but that's hardly a fresh hurdle for the series to clear. Daniel Craig makes for a far better Bond than I'd hoped, especially during the nail-biting action scenes or the prerequisite mingling with the high-cultured elite. He isn't the quip-slinging lady killer that Connery or Brosnan were, at least not yet, but he's twice as convincing when the time comes to flex a little muscle (or leap from one precariously-perched construction crane to another, as it were). This isn't a perfect effort - the poker climax is recklessly telegraphed, and the final forty minutes feel like a weepy, long-winded epilogue - but it is an action joyride, stuffed with clever winks and nods at the character's past, and one of the best Bonds ever made.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Decent
mattkratz2 October 2018
One small problem:Daniel Craig isn't quite suave or debonair enough to play Bond. He still gives a good turn in this movie. This film gives what you'd expect of a Bond film with action scenes, spectacular stunts, villains, and the usual characters. The coherent plot (sort of) also helped. I also like the exotic locations of Nassau, Miami,and the Czech Republic, among others,and I also liked the poker game. You might like Craig as Bond and the movie in general.

**1/2 out of ****
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It is a Bond movie; one of the best
guisreis20 March 2020
I was skeptical about a 007 novie with an actor who does bot have a face of James Bond (nice actor but perhaps too bully and not ebough classy). Anyway, Casino Royale is certainly one of he best movies of the franchise ever (no masterpiece, but much above average; probably my second favorite till now, after Octopussy). The story, possibly with a record of plot twists, has all you expect from a 007 film: the Bond girls are there (Eva Green shines but Caterina Muriino is also stunning), the weird villains (Casino Royale may be the 007 movie with the best villains, and Mads Mikkelsen is by far better than tthose gold-something from XXth century), the gadgets (although less charming than in previous films), the unconventional fights. There is also beautiful footage and special effects are very well used.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Is Craig's Bond as good as Connery? I say he's actually better.
Craig_McPherson19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bartender: Shaken or stirred? James Bond: Does it look like I give a damn? Few movie quotes so totally capture the mindset behind a film as this quip from Daniel Craig's 007 in Casino Royale.

Like Batman Begins, Casino Royale represents a complete re-boot of the Bond mythos, bringing us back the origin and re-laying the foundation for cinema's longest running franchise.

The last time I saw a Bond movie in the theatre was back in the Roger Moore days. In the interim since they've become video fodder, mostly because they'd become larger than life in all the wrong ways. The stories, or what little of them there were, had long ago become nothing more than mere vehicles for techno-wizardry, and the Bond universe had become a perverse cliché built around the latest toys and seemingly impervious villains.

What's refreshing about Casino Royale is that everything that had grown stale has been jettisoned in favor of a stripped down version of the super sleuth. Well, almost.

Gone are the gadgets, villains with metal teeth or razor-rimmed bowler hats. Still present are the sleek cars (albeit of the real-world variety), beautiful women, and white knuckle action scenes.

Much was written about the choice of Daniel Craig for the role of Bond. Complaints abounded that he wasn't "refined" enough, his eyes were too blue, Bond could never be blond, or just simply that he didn't have "the look".

To all that I say hogwash.

Craig plays bond as a brute force killing machine who also possesses a keen level of intelligence, but must constantly check himself to use his intellectual wiles when he would more readily prefer to savagely beat a foe to a pulp, or slit his throat.

Craig's Bond both gives and gets in equal measure. As much as he bloodies and bludgeons his opponents, he equally finds himself slashed, beaten, bleeding and poisoned.

As if a nod to the more intimate side of Bond that was briefly and (some say) disastrously flirted with in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond is given a human side, opening himself up with precarious results to the stunning Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), with whom he chooses to give up the undercover ops and settle down to a normal life.

So, in a nutshell, how good is Craig's performance? In my opinion, he's the first since Connery to absolutely personify the role of Bond. And, while many won't agree, I reluctantly have to say that I think he's actually better than the venerable Scot.

Heresy? Perhaps. Good movie smarts? You bet.
8/10
Much needed refresh of the series, but they bollocksed up the ending!
Barky4426 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I haven't been to see a Bond movie in the theaters in 20 years, but I felt compelled to do so with Casino Royale. They promised an update to the tired franchise, and they delivered quite nicely.

I like that Bond is now tough. I couldn't believe Dalton, and especially Brosnan, were tough at all. Suave, perhaps, but not tough, and suave just doesn't carry an action movie very far any more. Craig was so well-cast as Bond in this updating, it's like the film was scripted around him. Finally we have a tough-guy Bond, someone who could have been a Navy Seal if he was an American.

I like that they've made him all business. In former Bond films, there were a few minutes with M giving him the mission, and then Bond would cavort all over the globe. This one, the "head office" is involved in the storyline. Makes much more sense.

I was a bit disappointed with the Bond gimmickry this time around. Bond always has cool cars and cool toys. Casino Royale definitely has some great cars, but the toys are pathetic: his cool car comes equipped with ... a defibrillator?? They should have just scrapped that scene completely, it is so out of place they should have bagged it.

I can understand why they included that particular scene. Much of Casino Royale centers around a high-stakes poker game. When they were going to start playing poker, I groaned. "Here comes the boredom", I said to myself. They tried to keep it interesting with regularly scheduled breaks, where Bond would get involved in fights. That worked great the first time (with a fairly exciting sword-in-the-stairwell fight), but then they put in this defibrillator scene. Goofy and a major plot hole. Why poison a player mid-game? Would a player who died during a game forfeit his chips? Sounds implausible.

But it's Bond, and plot holes are a Bond tradition. At least these writers tried to make a complex plot. A good friend of mine pointed out this was not a typical Bond plot: no army of bad guys working for a single leader that Bond must fight through a la Mortal Combat. This is a convoluted plot involving terrorist funding, insurance fraud, money laundering, and kidnapping. You do have to pay a bit of attention. I liked it. It's no Academy-award winner, but at least they tried to make it intriguing.

There is one glaring error that these writers made, however, one key point that I felt ruined the overall experience. They bollocksed up the ending! See, towards the end of the film Bond falls in love. Now, even mild Bond enthusiasts know James was married at one time. For this, the "reboot" of the series, they absolutely needed to answer the question: who was James Bond's wife? And it looked like they were going to do just that, with Eva Green looking fabulous as Vesper Lynd. There was this whole setup with the two of them running away from the spy business and enjoying life. But what did the writers do? They turned her into a turncoat, someone trying to save her own husband from capture by Algerians or something. Then the film runs on with Bond trying to kill her in an act of revenge.

The writers clearly blew it with that one. Here was their chance to put their permanent stamp on the series by showing us the circumstances around Bond's marriage and the eventual death of his spouse. It would have been the Bond equivalent of killing Spock in the second Star Trek movie: an iconic moment that would have made movie history and truly reinvigorated the series. But they went back to the same, tired, formulaic "surprise" ending. They either didn't have depth of vision, or they chickened out with such culture-defining material.

This movie was a welcome change for the Bond franchise, but it would have been spectacular if only the filmmakers had the foresight and capacity to finally tackle one of the greatest mysteries in the history of film: who was James Bond's wife.

8 out of 10, points taken off for this egregious oversight.

Barky
Best Bond Since Connery
honyltd1 December 2006
Ian Fleming's James Bond will always be owned by Sean Connery. Though Dr.No is dated as far as effects and style, the passage of 44 years has not diminished the polish and cool charm under fire exuded effortlessly by Connery.

Throughout his successive turns in the role, James Bond was Sean Connery and no latter day Bond, in the minds of traditionalists, could ever be quite as convincing.In his later movies, Connery added a veneer of snappy one-liners and sardonic sarcasm. In Dr. No, we saw the "raw" James Bond, chillingly cold and true to Fleming's vision.

Surprisingly, Daniel Craig has managed to pull off a major coup; he has simultaneously reinvented the Bond franchise, much as Christian Bale has brought back the previous moribund "Batman". Despite the obvious physical differences, these are almost quickly dispersed as you get lost in the character, who is a credible incarnation of the pre-Dr.No Bond, rough around the edges, yet to fully define his character and ultimate evolution to top notch spy and cold killer with a license to kill.

If time were fluid, it would be easy to see the Craig character turn effortlessly into the Connery character in Dr. No. For that, Craig and the screenplay and the director should be commended on doing the best thing possible under the circumstances...give you a "new" James Bond, who is as close to the perfection of Sean Connery as can be obtained.
9/10
The New Bond Era
MattHankinson8 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You can feel the modern era of bond is coming through when Piers is Bond but Daniel Craig reinvents Bond in Casino royale. I like how it's a reboot. 'I knew it was too early to promote you' - M - it feels like after all the years of Bond that you've grown up with we can get a grasp of it here and start a fresh.

I love the black and white intro which shows us how James got to where he is.

There are many iconic moments in this film - Parkour scene is aesthically brilliant and Sebastian Foucan is a legend of the sport. The airport scene also is a story in itself and plays out brilliantly. The famous walking out water scene (which is Bond this time not a woman - shows Daniel Craig has brought a new era of Bond where he has to have a good body and so he should!). The shower scene in full clothes, the famous naked torture and also when he swerved to miss her on the road are all moments that stick in my head.

But as I alluded to with the shower scene it is also quite emotional this film and shows the vulnerability of James. Vesper broke his heart when she set him up and he still tried to save her from drowning. Don't see that side of james very often and it reminds me of George Lazenby in his only film. Bond should have gone for Ivana Milicevic (le chiffre girlfriend) and she is very very attractive!

In conclusion though, Casino Royale is a visually outstanding film and a great reinvention of James Bond and a great first effort from Daniel Craig - I'd forgotten it was a two parter though basically with the storyline continuing on into quantum of solace (from which I remember is not quite as good)
7/10
A new "ole blue eyes"
hazeljeanwoodward6 December 2006
An authentic licensee-to-kill: I like this James Bond. I think Craig delivered a credible, creditable performance. The director went back to basics, cutting out the over-the-top spoofing that characterized the Roger Moore movies and instead building up a thoroughly believable, if not always entirely likable, protagonist. The feisty Vesper, whose spirited replies and quick ripostes made for a three-dimensional female role, has a complicated and layered personality which contrasts well with his thoroughly male one and is not submerged by him by any means.

Courage in the face of danger, loyalty to queen and country and disregard of pain and suffering might seem old-fashioned, but I approve of the return to those sterling values.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
best recent Bond, but flawed
matthewkohler28 November 2006
The new Bond is great (he's not a pretty boy) and Dench is outstanding as always. The emphasis on character as well as plot was definitely a good idea. This is hugely better than recent Bond flicks which probably accounts for all the great reviews. Fun to watch BUT the editing was no good. There are scenes that don't belong and there are missing scenes. There are also plot holes. It's a shame. A little more work on tightening up the plot and it would have been terrific.

The acting is good, the sex is unfortunately only fair. The action is a bit frenetic as always in recent Bond movies (whatever happened to suspenseful action a la Goldfinger). The violence is sometimes extreme. Personally I think the movie should be rated R for the violence but the MPAA morons seem to think horrific violence is fine for children but god forbid they should see a nipple.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow!
euricodcosta21 November 2006
Before I entered the theater, I had the feeling that I was going to be disappointed. How wrong was I! Mr Daniel Craig has delivered in full the most realistic performance of Mr Bond. He is on par with Sean Connery. With his brutal performance of 007 together with a great storyline makes Casino Royale the best Bond flick in my opinion since Goldfinger. I sincerely hope is will not be his last. Don't miss it! On the down side, Im use to seeing the bond flicks loaded with gadgets and in this one, I was disappointed by the lack of Q merchandise. The film seems a little too raw but more than makes up to it by the sterling performance of Daniel Craig and a truly great storyline. You will not be disappointed
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Brutal Bond
Meganeguard24 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Director: Martin Campbell Duration: 144 minutes

While I have watched a number of James Bond films over the years I have never been what you could call a big fan of the industry. Of course I enjoyed the films, but as time went on they seemed to recycle the same set of ideas with their overly corny and cheesy dialogue. However, being James Bond films most viewers were probably there in the theaters to watch massive action scenes, explosions, and the new Bond girl. What this led to was a stream of amusing but ultimately sterile and formulaic films. However the new Bond film promised to be something different something that would break the mold for the standard Bond film. Therefore, when my girlfriend suggested that we go see the new Bond film, I was quite curious to see how Casino Royale measured up in comparison to the Bond films of the past. I must say that it surpasses not only most of the Bond films that I have watched but that it also surpasses most of the action films that I have seen as well.

Casino Royale opens with a scene that precedes Bond's gaining 00 status and in this scene the viewer learns that before an agent can gain 00 status one must have two confirmed kills. Soon before making his second kill, the viewer is treated to a flashback scene in which Bond kills his first man. Unlike other Bond films in which the enemy might be blown up or shot, this enemy is drowned by having his face submerged in a sink. This scene is quite well done and it shows a different type of Bond than the ones portrayed by Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan: this one has flaws. Bond appears visibly shaken by killing his enemy and through the manner of the enemy's death a more brutal aspect is introduced to the Bond film industry and the impersonality of death by projectile weapons is replaced by a more physically aspect of brutal strength. Later in the film Bond strangles one of his enemies in a very intense fight scene. Another flaw that Bond possesses is an over-inflated ego that tends to get in the way of his missions and almost proves quite costly a number of times in the film. I find this flawed Bond to be quite refreshing after seeing the nigh invulnerability of past Bonds. Also, this Bond is the most cold-blooded Bond yet; his second kill is shot in the head with nary a thought, I am quite curious to see how the character as portrayed by Daniel Craig is going to develop over the next few films. If this film is any indication it is going to be quite a treat.

Besides the more brutal aspect of the film, Casino Royale stands out as a truly well-done action film with some very impressive chase scenes and, like all other bond films, some quite interesting villains. Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of La Chiffre is quite magnificent. Also, of course, the film was made in locations of great natural and manmade beauty so it is quite a delight for the eyes as well.
7/10
Overrated
ClearTadpole22 August 2021
Really hard to watch.

Expressionless. Emotionless.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
All business
rdbuelow28 November 2006
The new Bond film is all business. Casino Royale is an excellent film with ample but not over the top special effects sequences lie those found in many of its predecessors. The on-foot chase sequence in the beginning of the movie is amazing. I left with bruises. A later torture scene had me wearing a hole in the fabric of my theater seat. You'll get it when you see it. Oww.

It should also be noted that my wife thinks Daniel Craig is quite the hunk. I haven't heard that from her since Redford made The Sting.

Finally, old Bond fans will miss the whimsy of earlier films. Most of them had some level of tongue-in-cheek humor laced throughout the action. As a result, Connery and his heirs never took themselves too seriously. You could always expect an occasional wink from the old Bonds ... not here. Like filmdom's Bourne and TV's Bauer, Casino Royale's Bond is all business.
4/10
Great movie as such, no 007 movie though
tom-jurcevic26 December 2006
As an action/spy/thriller movie, I absolutely loved it. There's action, explosions, quite a decent plot, a love story, suspense, car-chases, etc. etc. basically everything that a good movie needs.

What I didn't like at all was the fact that this was running under the James Bond franchise. Sure, in some shots Daniel Craig was wearing a tux, he's driving 2 different Astons and he even said 'Bond, James Bond.' in the final scene, but hey... where's the smooth finesse that all prior Bonds had? The 21 century Bond seemingly has none of the education, the snobbishness that I came to love. He has Terminator-like determination, an ego the size of Big Ben, but unfortunately no British education to make it uniquely 'Bond-ish'. I don't mind the fact one bit that he's no longer a sex-maniac that gets into every woman's knickers that crosses his path - that part was too '68' anyway... It's the missing gadgetry, the teasing of Miss Moneypenny, ever-annoyed 'Q', the superb British accent even (!) - all in all, he's no longer THE British 00 agent, he's become just another action movie actor. Not a bad one, don't get me wrong - only he's not Bond...

Well, maybe I'm utterly missing the point, and all I am missing only comes gradually over the next movies, but at this time I'm not a Bond-fan.

If you are out to see a good action-movie, by all means watch it. If on the other hand you are heading for a Bond movie, forget it...
6/10
too long, too much CGI, just TOO MUCH
jaybob6 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My summary just about sums it all up. It is too long the 146 minute running time seemed like 246 minutes.

There was too much CGI many scenes felt like a computer game;

There were also too many locations, The opening number was like a Rube Goldberg Cartoon. The ending with the sinking of a building in Venice was needless & almost embarrassing.

Much of the dialog I had trouble understanding, Lucky I saw a closed caption credits version.

Martin Campbell directed this mess. The editing needed editing. One other point, if this took place at the beginning of his career, how come all those new gadgets I-pod's or whatever they are CALLED. '' Dame Judi Dench portrays M & is good . Jeffrey Wright's role is way to short. Eva Green was the requisite lady, She is very beautiful,BUT not much of actress,

OH yes there is a main villain played by Mads Mikkessen he is OK but there have been much better villains.

By the time we get to the torture scene,it looked good BUT we know it wasn't for real.

OH yes James Bond himself , we have a new one Daniel Craig

best thing About him is his fantastic body. nearly all previous Bonds were better to some degree.

Rating:**1/2 (out of 4) 73 points (out of 100) IMDD 6 (out of 10)
10/10
The Best Bond Movie...Ever
zofos11 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Oh my God...it couldn't be happening, could it? Could I be watching a guy outdoing Sean Connery as James Bond? Could I be watching a movie that is not only as good as Connery's ones but maybe even better?" Yes, on all counts. These were the thoughts going through my head as I watched this movie in the cinema. I'm not some kid who has only seen the last few James Bonds, I've seen every one of them over the last few decades.

We all thought Pierce Brosnan had been the best Bond since Connery, but Daniel Craig makes him look like small beer (sorry Pierce, you're a nice guy!) Everyone was shocked when Brosnan got dropped as James Bond and this new guy was hired in his place. Who was he? He didn't look like the usual tall, dark and handsome type. He seemed very nervous when he was announced as Bond and this lead to a tidal wave of negativity about his casting. Like many people, I didn't think he was going to be able to pull it off, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. How wrong we all were. (Perhaps the bad reaction spurred him on to show people.)

After a perfect casting decision. The makers then made another one. They hired screenwriter Paul Haggis, the man responsible for some of the best movies of the last 5 years including "Crash", "Million Dollar Baby" and "In The Valley of Elah." It was an inspired choice.

Another great decision was to bring back "GoldenEye" director Malcolm Campbell (the best of Brosnan's Bond movies) and he does another excellent job helming this one, somehow managing to make a stale franchise feel completely revitalized again.

The movie is based on the first James Bond novel by Ian Fleming "Casino Royale." (The Bond producers finally acquired the rights to this book when MGM merged with Sony.) The film really goes back to the beginnings of James Bond's career. There is no "Q" in this one, no gadgets and no camp humour. We see Bond cold-bloodedly killing two people to get his "Double O" license (a real statement of intent from the makers). We also see him acquiring his Aston Martin car in a card game (a car as iconic as Batman's Batmobile). Everything feels fresh and new, even though the stripped-down feel and incredible hand-to-hand combat is heavily influenced by Matt Damon's Bourne movies.

This is a James Bond movie for the post-9/11 generation; Bond spectacularly tackles a free-running "bomb-maker" in the opening scene, foils an attempted terrorist attack at an American airport and takes on the villain Le Chiffre, a terrorist banker. Paul Haggis and the other writers have effortlessly taken a Cold War novel from the 1950s and made it seem like a story written yesterday.

Eva Green is a very striking-looking Bond girl, not your typical blond in distress. She plays Vesper Lynd, a strong, modern woman and a refreshing change from the bland model eye-candy of previous Bonds. Eva is tall and elegant and perfectly compliments Daniel Craig's left-field casting and the new look and feel of the whole movie.

Le Chiffre is a classic Bond villain; vaguely foreign, disfigured and rotten to the core. He lines up well with any villain from the Bond series. Bond's psychological tussle with Le Chiffre at Casino Royale is the highlight of the film. It's full of suspenseful moments.

The movie doesn't stint on the torture scenes and, if you're a man, they'll make your eyes water!

"Casino Royale" is sure to become a Christmas classic on television in years to come. I would go so far as to say it's the most enjoyable movie of its type since "Raiders of the Lost Ark." I enjoyed it that much. Can't wait for "Quantum of Solace."
8/10
Craig is perfect for this kind of Bond
rbverhoef4 December 2006
How about that. 'Casino Royale' is the best Bond-film since 'Dr. No' and especially 'Goldfinger'. I have to admit, I thought this with 'GoldenEye' as well, with Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, but with every next movie it went more downhill. I hope this will not happen with this James Bond, played by Daniel Craig. The actor here is perfect for Bond and that has to do with some of the changes Bond has had, seen in this film.

Craig shows us a Bond who is new to his job and in the story he really is. When the film starts he is not even a 00-Agent. He becomes one after killing two men in a black and white preview that sets the tone of the rest of the film. The villain for the real story is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker who finances freedom fighters, or terrorists if you will. The Bond-girl is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), M is still M played by Judi Dench. Bond's mission is to win Le Chiffre's money in a big poker game in the Casino Royale so he can't finance terrorists and he needs MI-6 to protect him.

So much for the plot which is not really what makes this Bond better than most of its predecessors. It is the raw tone and the more human characteristics Bond has. Where Brosnan was buried in corny one-liners and technical gadgets, including a ridiculous invisible car in 'Die Another Day', Craig is most of all human. He has the car, but the films does not depend on it. Here we see a flawed Bond, one that makes mistakes, even the biggest one there is in his profession. He falls in love. I have to admit that the scenes around his love play to fast and the series, or is it the character, seems unable to handle it the right way, but it does not really matter. There is also quite some fun with what we know about Bond from earlier films. I hope Bond will stay as he is here, and the films will stay as low-key as here.

I mentioned the raw tone. There is a scene that challenges the PG-13 rating in which torturing is the main event. Especially this scene shows why Craig is perfect for the role. Brosnan has had his torture, but not this kind, and look how they both act on it. Brosnan was good, but Craig seems needed to keep the series interesting. Like the first Brosnan, the first Craig is directed by Martin Campbell, which seems no coincidence. I hope he will do more, or at least I hope other directors will follow the tone he and Craig have set. This is probably the first time I am really looking forward to the next installment of the Bond-series.
8/10
James Bond returns to the screen; a franchise lives on.
michaelRokeefe15 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is back...looking different, but no less dangerous. Daniel Craig is the newest James Bond and will attract his share of 'nay sayers', but give him a chance. He makes the best of it as Bond, the M16 agent before being promoted to 007 status. M(Judi Dench)has some doubts with this reckless out of control, but smarter than average spy. Bond's mission is track down the heart of terrorist cell, a loan shark named Le Chiffre(Mads Mikkelsen). Bond finds himself in a high stakes,$150 million, poker tournament in Montenegro. Keeping an eye on the British government's 'bank roll' is a lovely Treasury Agent(Eva Green). This Bond may not care if his martini is shaken or stirred; but he is ruggedly handsome, electric, brutally dangerous and exudes high octane energy. Other cast members: Jeffrey Wright, Caterina Murino, Giancarlo Giannini and Jesper Christensen.
9/10
Commentary on the movie related to the book
stibe23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale with Daniel Craig is good, but probably something different than you would expect. As you might know the events happen supposedly before any other Bond movie — it is about making of 007.

Below is a commentary on the 21st Bond movie as seen by on who has read the Ian Fleming's book Casino Royale.

First of all, Casino Royale movie tries to be true to the Fleming's book, which is first published in 1953. Those were the days of two super powers fighting for dominance after World War II. Movie comes out in 2006. Oops, times have changed. And so has Bond. Cold war is gone and Russians are no longer the bad guys.

Thus the script writers of movie faced a problem (#1). In the book there is Soviet secret service which takes care of traitors of the communist cause. There is no longer SMERSH (Smert' Shpionam, death to spies). The bad guy has to have problems in our time, to be as true as possible to the book, and still sound as convincing as you can in a Bond movie. Le Chiffre does business with third world warlords and other criminals by handling their money transactions. Good enough for this millennium, albeit a bit lamer than using nukes or destroying mankind. Then we bring up the money problems — as in book — with new means: failure in stock market. And BANG! The bad guy is $110,000,000 short on his account. And his African partners do not like it. Solution: get the money back by gambling — the classic "fast money".

In fifties they gambled a bit different games than today. Problem #2. Who the hell knows what Baccarat is? That's the game where Le Chiffre excelled in the book. Solution: modernize the scene. Today it's Texas Hold'em poker — no-limits of course. Still the movie manages to salvage the book's idea here. Bond loses at first and then gets money from CIA to continue gambling — and wins. And in -53 Felix Leiter was definitely not a black brother. Now he is, since we need a good black guy. The Africans were already evil.

Bringing in Leiter works better than bringing in Rene Mathis, a French agent. Problem #3. What the hell is a French agent doing in Montenegro? 50s are gone. Who gives a damn about deuxime bureau? Ah, they never tell in the movie that he is a French, he just speaks a French sounding bad English? Problem partially solved. Otherwise the names are true to the book. Vesper Lynd is classically beautiful dark haired British girl, who thinks Bond is a cold-hearted man. Oh, in the movie they say she had Algerian boyfriend, which brigs up a problem.

Vesper's boyfriend was Polish. Problem #4: geography is different than in the book. Western French coast and its holiday retreats aren't that sexy in 2006. They probably sounded hot in 50s. Think of some tropical island like Aruba, where they actually have big gambling going on. But no… they decide to locate Casino Royale to Montenegro. Probably semi-politically correct. And the bad guy there is Le Chiffre — man without a country. Let's not hurt the feelings of USA's allies. And Iraq would just not do as a place for high stakes poker, but ancient castle in Eastern Europe is nice. But not Poland. It's too nice country to be framed, since it is in NATO. Let's just blame the Algerians. Couple of other places is also introduced outside the book.

Problem #5. The book is just too short for movie of 2 hours 37 minutes. Thus we need the additional places and events that bring in the extra traveling that is expected of Bond films, plus they add to the narrative where the character of Bond is created. Film is here different than books. Remember that they have to describe also in movie how Bond became 007, and how he dedicated his heart to the Queen and the country.

Became 007?! Is this not the 21st Bond film? Sure, but the events take presumably place before Dr. No, where Bond has already set his mind to the business. Problem #6: the movie does not make too good job at showing the birth of 007 as we know. It just lacks some details, like Bond's talks with Mathis that are in the book and Vesper's suicide. The latter had to be taken away because there was need for the big bad guy to sum up the movie. Remember that there is no SMERSH. Mr. White's greed for $115,000,000 comes to replace it. Not that anyone explains in the movie who he was. Anyway. Vesper's death and deceit makes Bond realize the evils of the world that he sets out to straighten. But not in the movie. There is no inner talk of Mr. Bond, fighting his own battle of what is right and wrong, good and evil. He just goes and gets the money from Mr. White (who is lot lamer than SMERSH's spies).

After six problems we get to 007: Daniel Craig. Many people might see him as a problem #7. Not as handsome as Sean Connery, not as funny as Roger Moore. Probably as dull as Timothy Dalton, and not as some-of-the-all-previous as Pierce Brosnan. Maybe people would like to see Mr. Blond as the next George Lazenby. Hopefully not. Craig did good job portraying the character that Bond is in Casino Royale book. He is more the Bond that Fleming describes. And so is Eva Green as Vespe. Not the exact stereotype of Ursula Andress rising up from Caribbean ocean in tiny bikini. Craig does good job — even he has blue eyes.

Overall this Bond is one of the more realistic Bond films. Is it good or bad? I think it is good, while different. And also therefore good.
6/10
Whats all the fuss about?
robuk30923 November 2006
Well, I saw this today and I honestly cant imagine why there's been so many people going on about how good this film was. To me, it seemed like the film was all backwards.

There were some really good action sequences at the beginning, and I quite enjoyed the Parkour chase scene, but the film slowly seemed to die down from there. Now personally, I'm a massive fan of bond films, I grew up on watching them and my brother and I spent hours pretending to be Bond as kids. So I was really looking forward to all the classic bond elements, beautiful women, fast cars and most importantly, the gadgets! OK, so they often provide a bit of a comic element to bond films, but who didn't at some point want a car with a rocket launcher built into it? On to the film itself then, well, Daniel Craig did fairly well in the movie, but personally I didn't really feel that he came across as the cold ruthless killer he was supposed to be, Pierce Brosnan did a much 'colder' bond in a few sections of the other bond films. Personally I saw him as being just a tad whiny - poor me, I'm an orphan and I have a chip on my shoulder...

Plus, I felt that the whole poker sequence went on for way too long, and there was no feeling of intensity during it, neither Daniel Craig or Mads Mikkelsen gave the feeling that this was a life or death kind of game.

Two more quick points, the twist at the end of the movie was really obvious to me, and probably will be to any bond fan, and the ending of the movie was a tad dire as well.

All in all it felt that there were too many potential sub-plots left unaccounted for, and the movie had no real urgency to it. Don't get me wrong, for what it did it wasn't too bad, it just felt more like a really great scene setter for a movie. If they'd condensed it all into about an hour then explored all of Le Chiffre's out of pocket and no doubt angry war lords with the requisite action sequences then I feel it would have made a better movie.
10/10
A great bond film. If you were not a bond fan! you will be now.
ben-14878 December 2006
Daniel Craig gives what I can only describe as a top notch fantastic front of the seat performance to the handsome action spy that many have come to love.

I too was someone who wondered how the new man would do at the task in hand and I am happy to say that I was not disappointed at all. The film from start to finish is so entertaining that the moment it comes out on DVD there will be a nice spot on the shelf ready for regular viewing. The acting is superb, suspense gripping and the storyline action and stunts come together in a superb feature length completely brilliant movie.

Daniel Craig is a man to watch in his new found role and I reckon the only way for him is up. Great job keep it going.

This is one of the only action films that I have seen that I can honestly say is worth every penny and a decent viewing in the cinema - if you have not seen it already do so before all your family or friends have already talked about it non stop.
10/10
The name's Bond.... James Bond
sauravjoshi8513 February 2021
Casino Royale is a Spy Action movie directed by Martin Campbell and stars Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini.

This movie is twenty first movie in James Bond series and first to star Daniel Craig as James Bond.

There is no doubt that is the one of the best James Bond movie ever produced and the movie could be termed as the masterpiece among all the bond movies. The plot of the movie was fresh and execution of the plot is superb the credit should also be given to the screenplay writer for writing such a crisp and engaging screenplay which will keep the viewers on the edge of the seats through out the movie.

Acting is great and i would in personal opinion would rate Daniel Craig the best Bond after off-course Late Sir Sean Connery. The display of a tough, brutal yet charming Bond makes him more appealing. The second best part of the movie is that the movie had focused more on action stunts and the usage of gadgets is been significantly reduced. Eva Green is being effective in her portray of Vesper was effective and charming. Mads Mikkelsen had done a tremendous job is the role of Le Chiffre and with his unforgettable performance he had surely made his name in one of the greatest bond villains. Judi Dench is an acting powerhouse and she is equally effective in the role of M.

Cinematography is superb and since the movie is been shot in the exotic locations, the locations is been captured beautifully. The music is superb and blend superbly with the movie. The climax of the movie is slightly different from other Bond movies and is superbly executed. This is undoubtedly one of the greatest Bond movie and a must watch for all action/bond lovers.
10/10
Bond is back!
shawnmikedryer11 July 2021
This was a first viewing i've heard great things and it surely did not disappoint! I liked how it was a sort of origin story and we see the first job Bond is given when he becomes an official 007. The sets are gorgeous, the fighting sequences are like poetry in motion, and the story was exciting. Never thought a film shot mostly at a card table could be so exhilarating. Daniel Craig is badass and lives up to the Bond name. Also great supporting roles from Mads Mikkelsen and Eva Green.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful bond movie ever.....
marcreijnen13 April 2008
The only good thing about this movie is the blu ray release... Outstanding picture and sound quality. The rest is very bad. No gimmicks, no Q no money penny, no nothing...very boring movie. This is not a James Bond film. Please don't make another!!!!! There is almost nothing happening in the movie. No nice one liners, no gadgets, nothing of making this a Bond movie.Pierce Brosnan was for me the most suitable person to play James Bond. Always loved the way he played the role of James Bond. Even the intro of the movie is gone. From the beginning you don't have the feeling that you are watching a Bond movie. And it takes two and a half our to watch this and hoping for some action, but in the end comes an action scene, sadly this makes the movie by far not the kind of movie that I love to see.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Winning hand, but not quiet a full house
adrongardner20 November 2006
Every Bond series is a product of the times. Daniel Craig is the harder reality above the almost "in-joke" techie nature of the last few movies. I like the film and for the most part they are very good bringing together something fresh, as far as Bond movies go, but not quite anything fresher than Daniel Craig's face.

Horray for dumping corny lines and nice to see Felix back in it. The action scenes were pretty good, though some a little too drawn out. The Airport scene in the movie is almost complete dropped from memory until I read some other reviews recounting the plot. It needed some trimming. There were only two other problems I had in the otherwise enjoyable outing.

First, I think they pushed the love story a little too hard. Yes, they are trying to peel the layers off Bond to soften him up a bit, but the dialog was simply better off in another movie. This subplot could have been trimmed a bit also.

The only other thing I noticed in the film, was dialog. Or the complete lack of it from Daniel Craig. He does a lot of blue-eyed staring into the lens, but talks very little. Most of the scenes involve other members of the cast talking up a storm, while we hear little from Bond himself. Perhaps that is the tone they were going for, but I know this Craig guy can act, I want to hear him speak.

Other than that, I hope they keep up this line of style which is more Jason Bourne than, Inspector Gadget.
6/10
Pretty good first half, OK 2nd - not really Bondish though
pc9518 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond movies have been around for ages, and as long as I can remember, I've enjoyed watching their repetitive silliness and story lines. Part of what makes it fun is the Bond character himself. With almost a half dozen Bond actors people have their favorites - usually Connery or Moore. I myself liked Moore as the most cheeky and chauvinistic. Pierce Brosnan was not far behind with his suave ways. Now comes the next Bond actor - Daniel Craig. How does he do and how is Casino Royale? - both OK. As Bond he's a bit stoic and athletic and not as mouthy or suave. He seems very earnest and serious, a lot like Timothy Dalton was in his The Living Daylights. The movie opens well and holds the fort down about until the action switches to Montenegro, from there on in it's a bit by the numbers swimming in familiar territory (spoiler) with a really tasteless torture scene. As a film I'd rank it as a bit above OK about a B-. As a Bond movie it doesn't have the campiness or playfulness as much; it's better than some, but still behind many of them. I'd rank it similar to Die Another Day, above World is not Enough, way above Golden Eye, and below Tomorrow Never Dies of the newer ones. Is it worth seeing in the theater - probably not unless you're a Bond fan. A little disappointed overall, but not too much. Daniel Craig should make for promising future Bond movies.
8/10
"The Only Bond Film In Which I Enjoy The Opening Credits"
Matt_Layden30 December 2006
James Bond has just earned his "00" status and after a mission here and there, finds himself sitting at a high stakes poker table against the villain Le Chiffre. Bond joins the dangerous and sexy Vesper Lynd, who is funding his end of the game and he must come out on top.

After seeing a little film called Layer Cake, I thought to myself, "Wow, this guy would make a great Bond." A few months later they actually announced the new James Bond and guess who got the gig, Daniel Craig. I thought that this was a terrific choice and that the fans would love it, but boy was I wrong. The only feedback I heard was negative, a blonde hair, blue eyed Bond? Could it be? People were so outraged they even created a "craignotbond" web-site. Of course, all of this happened before the film opened and once it did everyone seemed to change their tune. Everywhere I went I heard that, not only was this the best Bond film ever, but the Craig was indeed one of the best Bonds. All I have to say is...I told ya so.

I was never a big fan of the James Bond films. I've seen a few when they would appear on television and I grew up with Brosnan as my Bond. So out of the few Bond films that I have seen, I can say that this tops the list. I would go as far as saying it has sparked my interest in seeing the films because I know that this film decided to go in another direction. I'm thankful it did. Casino Royale is the first Bond film in which I actually enjoy the opening title credits. Usually I'll be sitting their bored out of my mind with the theme song playing, but here I was digging it.

Is it more "real" then previous installments? Well at first I would have said no, since that chase scene, as spectacular as it is, was off the wall in realism. The half man half monkey guy jumping everywhere wasn't too realistic to me, but I'll take that to an invisible car any day. Guess what, Bond makes mistakes too. His ego gets in the way of his goal and takes the audience along for the ride as well. Craig pulls off a convincing Bond, with an attitude unlike the rest of them. His charm and charisma shines throughout and I'm happy to say that my first choice was the right one. Let's hope we see Craig in more installments to the new franchise. With little in side jokes for true Bond fans, and blatant ones for people who just know his name, the film appeals to everyone. It's intense, thrilling and above all enjoyable.

The beautiful and seductive Vesper Lynn is played dangerously and seductively by Eva Green. Playing well of Craig and adding a little bit of ego to herself can hold her own in the scenes. The villain, although not as over the top as almost every other villain is average here. What makes the Bond films so fun is seeing how insane these villains are. There is always that one thing about them that makes them crazy enough to be a Bond villain, here it was missing. Sure he has one eye and the other one cries blood, but what does that do for us? Nothing. As unrealistic as those villains may be, they were one of the main things that made those films so good, and taking that away isn't good for anybody.

One little gripe about it though, would be that is slows done to a halt in the third act, which gave me the signal that it was wrapping up and everything was going to be alright. Then out of nowhere comes this scene with guns blazing and buildings collapsing. I thought the film was over, then it went on for another 30 or so minutes. Although, the last 5 minutes of the film are indeed that damn good.

Bond is low on gadgets this time, and only one short car chase scene, which is fine considering it is his early career. Most of the tense scenes come from Bond sitting in a chair. He's playing poker of course, but sitting in a chair nonetheless. I enjoyed the action scenes and the films really tops the charts as one of the best Bond films and of the year. Much like Batman Begins and Superman Returns, we have a winner on our hands that is taking an old dying series and breathing new and exciting life into it. I'll be sure to see the next film, in which Craig can only better himself as the one they call Bond...James Bond.
8/10
The Name is Bond... Raw & Pulse Racing!
danzs19 November 2006
I tried to watch this movie on its first day of release but due to prior commitments had to wait till Sunday. However, to watch the new Bond turned out to be the best thing to get the blood racing in my lazy Sunday morning veins.

The movie is terrific for its edge of the seat action sequences, slick editing and moreover presenting a bond who often gets bruised, bleeds and keeps falling in and out of trouble. Hey! even his heart stops beating for a few seconds. But in true Ian Fleming style, he keeps coming back to ask for more.

No fancy gadgets here… a move I welcome, since it gets replaced by in-the-face punches, crazy jumps and even crazier stunts. Add to it a couple of pretty bond females, exotic locales, and an Aston Martin DB 9 that makes space for a defibrillator machine! What more can one wish for?

Can't say much for those who did not enjoy this effort. Perhaps they prefer a tailor made James Bond who plays more with gadgets & gizmos like an infatuated schoolboy rather than a hard core 007 who makes no bones about what he is. Simply in your face… Take it or leave it.

As for me... I recommend this flick for anyone who likes Bond... raw and pulse racing.
7/10
Different Approach
hellblazer-79 November 2006
I really like it. Daniel Craig as new 007 is simply great and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, first "bondgirl ever" too. CASINO ROYALE is not a best film of the year, but I think no one is expecting that - and I'm not disappointed. There is a lot of fun and "internal jokes" for fans, villain Le Chiffre is Charismatic and you may like him. This is second time, when director Martin Campbell brought 007 to new era. I also like main titles - song "You know my name" with imaginative animated sequence... still, I hope next time we will see some traditional moments and more of Bond's classic character - in CASINO ROYALLE everything is different because we are watching a prequel movie...
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
we wasted 8 million hours watching this movie
meggiepie7 May 2007
there should be a warning at the beginning of this movie that there is nothing good..... way to drawn out, too many villains, no one knows what is going on!!!! It is four in the morning and we kept waiting for the movie to get good but it didn't.... The beginning of the movie, i thought awesome, black and white, what what was the point of that? Dialogue...there was none...that we could understand...What was up with the scene sequencing? no one knew where the HECK he was! Too DANG longgggg...There was no flow to this film. the best part was the end credits, and then when they played that cool James bond song. The person aside from me wanted to fall asleep half way through it. I tried watching it a second time to make sense of things but I still couldn't put the pieces together. The best part was the last 30 seconds where he shoots Mr. White in the back knee and says he is bond. Worst bond story line ever. But who the heck is Mr. White? No one knows!!!!!! I don't want anyone to know that I have ever seen this movie. It is good that this was not the first Bond movie ever because none of the others would have been made, and everybody loves Sean Connery....
10/10
The best Bond movie in decades
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki31 October 2007
Close adaptation of Fleming's first Bond novel. After banker to the world's terrorists LeChiffre has embezzled millions from his clients and lost it all playing the stock market, he sets up a high stakes card game at Casino Royale in Montenegro in attempt to regain the losses before he's found out. Recently promoted to 00 status, James Bond is sent to beat LeChiffre at the card game and bankrupt him, so he will have no option but to turn to the British government for protection, which they plan on giving him, in exchange for everything he knows about his employer.

Things don't go according to plan, however.

The details have been updated from the 53 year old book, but the premise is still the same, and this ends up being one of the closest adaptations of Ian Fleming's original material we've seen yet. Daniel Craig does a great job bringing Fleming's antihero back to the screen for the first time since 1989, and he has plenty of great material to work with here. The screenplay is well written, with plenty of suspense, action, and sharp dialogue, without being overly comical. There's also several references to earlier Bond films (some of the clothing of the henchmen mirrors Licence to Kill and Live and Let Die, the 1964 Astin Martin, etc.) without being derivative of them. Film mercifully avoids the needless and comical gadgets that were so prevalent in some previous films.

Beautifully filmed in central Europe; long, but not overlong; and with a kick ass opening scene set in Madagascar, this is the best Bond film in decades, with one of the best actors to play Bond in the lead.
9/10
Casino Royale, James Bond brings the house down
MovieZoo17 November 2006
I can only write a positive review about this movie and hope that you believe everything I say. There is not a better Bond movie in its entirety. I can say there were some parts in other Bond movies I enjoyed quite a lot, but not one single Bond movie is as good as this one. And now, I am going to offend someone. Sorry! Daniel Craig is the best damn Bond in Her Majesty's service.

From the very beginning of Casino Royale, it was clear this was going to be the introduction of a new Bond and we were going to like it whether we were prepared to or not. I think even M went through that experience as well. She couldn't help herself, she had no choice but to respect this 007.

Craig shoots straight and without missing. And he has a big gun. His less slick appearance and more acrobatic display keeps you watching so you don't miss anything. And believe me if you blink, you may miss a lot.

This can be a very fast paced movie but does slow down occasionally for some smart dialogue. Although, when it slows down, do not blink yet! Sight gags and tight shots can be missed if you look the other way. Be sure to look for the Aston Martin. Oh yeah, can this guy order a drink or what!! Very different from other Bonds.

Nothing misses in this movie. Acting, action, mystery, camera-work, comic-relief - it's all there like never before.

Director Martin Campbell earns a 009 out of a possible 010. Great Work!
9/10
IMO the best Bond film ever made
mkm-hermanjnr17 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Opinions differ on the older Bond movies. Groundbreaking for their time, in retrospect they arguably seem curiously formulaic and dated, now that "super spy" and "evil genius" tropes are more established.

By refreshing the formula and taking a huge step away from the campy, cheesy world of the oldest Bonds, Casino Royale is, in my mind, the best Bond film ever made.

The first strong suit in the movie's favour is that it distances itself from any campiness as much as possible. Bond no longer gets exploding pens, laser watches or novelty sex toys hiding lethal gas capsules (okay I made that last one up). Instead he simply gets his brain, a gun and a license to use it.

The comedic one-liners are also mercifully toned back; he gets a few, but don't expect a big grin and a wink-to-camera every time he shoots someone.

Daniel Craig's performance in this film is also excellent, in addition to the character being written in a more complex and intriguing way.

He brings a raw physicality and brutality to the role of Bond with his muscular physique, a kind of blunt edge with a gentlemanly exterior. A man who is unashamedly a killer and has some emotional damage, but is nonetheless a brave hero like the Bond of old.

This new Bond has some issues, too, which works to make him more likeable and believable. Yes, he's still great at his job, can still gun down a bunch of baddies and he's still ferociously attractive to women...but this all comes at a cost.

Craig's Bond shows genuine vulnerability when he falls in love during the film, and we see that below the cold, almost psychopathic exterior he presents during his working life, there is a man with a large, badly wounded heart underneath. It's actually quite devastating to see the damage losing this woman actually does to him, and it influences his character significantly in the following movies.

Mads Mikkelsen also delivers an absolutely standout performance as the main antagonist, Le Chiffre. In keeping with the more realistic direction of the movie, Le Chiffre is a crooked banker who finances terrorists and makes money from insider trading.

He is a sleazy criminal with a sharp mind, and yet he's also driven by a very understandable dilemma; he needs money urgently, since he owes a large debt to dangerous people.

Le Chiffre is not some villain who owns a massive corporation, laughing as he strokes a cat in a bunker on the moon. He's just a ruthless, violent man in debt to even nastier people. It's a refreshing change. His death, not even by Bond's hand, is even more satisfying.

The movie knows that we don't need a Die-Hard style punch up. It's far more effective simply to see this nasty weasel of a man quickly executed for his own failure.

Perhaps the saddest facet of the movie is that it's sequels did not (in my opinion) seem to understand what made Casino Royale so refreshing and great.

Quantum of Solace squandered some menacing build-up from this movie and was a rather dull affair with a generic outlandish villain again. By the time of Spectre the direction the series was taking had gone full circle, with outrageous action sequences and ridiculously campy over the top plot lines more akin to those in the 60's movies.

If they'd stuck with the more realistic, dark tone set in Casino Royale we could have been in for some really special films with Craig at the helm. Alas, we still have this one.
7/10
Back to basics
xredgarnetx27 April 2008
Let's make sure we understand that Daniel Craig is not Sean Connery before I write that Craig's James Bond in CASINO ROYALE is very much in the mold of the James Bond of old, before things started getting out of hand in the Roger Moore era. The plot is simple enough, the number of characters stripped down (no Q or or Miss Moneypenny or stuffy prime minister, just Bond and M), the action sequences tight and brutal. Craig makes a believable-enough blond Bond on his first mission, as he uncovers a plot among a mysterious cartel to amass a fortune based on some nefarious doings including blowing up a jumbo jet and winning a high-stakes poker tournament. The actor playing LeChiffre is sinister enough, and the actresses playing the Bond girls (there are really only two) are strictly eye candy. The focus is heavily on Craig, who seems physically fit enough (or perhaps it is his stunt double) as he races around the world to expose and defeat this cartel. And the truth is, he does remind me of Connery's Bond, with a touch of Tim Dalton thrown in. No clownish Bond he, like Moore or Brosnan. The always entertaining Jeffrey Wright plays Felix Leiter, Bond's American counterpart.
3/10
Casino Royale is the Worst of the Bunch
spencerthetracy17 November 2006
How does one start relating the problems relating to the mess of this movie? Firstly, the plot is not revealed until 1/2 way through the movie. And it is so muddled as to stupefy the best imagination. I had to listen to an interview with the director on the radio before it made any sense.

Secondly, we are led to believe that this is James' first outing as an operative even though the actor is apparently in his late forties. I don't believe that spies start their careers that late. And I have a hard time believing that James Bond, in any incarnation, would kill as haphazardly and thoughtlessly as this one.

Which takes us to my third complaint: Daniel Craig is not a handsome man. Apart from his buffed body he has no sex appeal. He does not possess the rugged yet refined masculinity that the previous Bonds possessed in abundance. Craig has a roughness but no charm. He is without doubt the least attractive member in the bunch.

Lastly, this movie had no idea when the love should end and the action begin. No other movie in the franchise seemed so thrown together and so jumbled. And I can't imagine what the producers were thinking having so many double-agents. That was a very amateurish move.

I didn't like this Bond. I didn't like the movie. And I don't like the direction this franchise is heading. They've made some terrible choices. First to not beg Pierce to reprise a role that he perfected, and lastly, and most importantly to employ a Bond that is ugly and ruthless and without any suavete.

The Broccolis should rethink their choices before they lose all credibility.

3 out of 10 stars. And I'm being generous.
2/10
Not that good, better wait till DVD
zoofish10 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watched Casino Royale last night and was mainly disappointed. On the plus side: the new Bond is OK, the story is OK, the girls are fine, the free running scene (early on in the film) is awesome. Now, on the negative side... The film is flawed by 2 dramatic slow-downs in the pace. First there is an interminable card game scene - it never ends!! In the movie it is played over 2 days. While the "poker match-high stakes-secret blinking eye/giveaway tell-2 men staring into each others eyes" scene represents a proved movie plot exercise(albeit extremely clichéd), in this film you have to endure it three times in succession! 2 dramatic episodes segment the poker playing, the first a fight scene with 2 African terrorists which on reflection made very little addition to the plot. The second slow-down is when Bond and his girl go through a boring long romance, with "i love you - oh, I love you too" quality dialogue. You'll know this scene when you get to it. Terrible. That leads me to criticism no. 3 - the film is too long. There are multiple scenes that are just too long, and some which should have been cut. Finally there is a tremendous amount of product placement. At several points it feels more like a TV ad than blockbuster. The Ford car in the Bahamas is probably the most blatant. Nice to see Richard Branson though. So mainly disappointed. I don't think it was terrible, but definite recommendation to wait till its on DVD, or better yet TV. I am also disappointed that all the reviews I have read have been very positive - I was expecting a great film.
8/10
Well done Daniel...you would have made Mr Fleming proud!
standish7719 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's begin by saying that YES I am a hardcore James Bond fan, one who has watched all the films countless times before, traveled to some of the locations worldwide and even once blagged my way into the press pit at a 007 film premiere. James Bond is a national icon and a film phenomenon. So when Daniel Craig was originally announced as the 6th and latest incarnation of the character, obviously like everyone else I was somewhat taken back and surprised. Yes, maybe he didn't have the playboy good looks of Pierce Brosnan but let's remind ourselves that the original James Bond character that Ian Fleming wrote was a ruthless agent with a license to kill. The Brosnan and Moore films, though extremely entertaining completely destroyed Fleming's original character. Gone were the tension and realistic action scenes found in the Connery and Dalton films and in their place were fantastical and completely implausible plots. Bond never seemed to be in danger, because the audience always knew that he could whip out his latest gadget and save the day. 'Die Another Day' also had some shockingly bad CGI effects (notably towards the end with the crashing plane). Bond was beginning to look like a glorified cartoon character.

So at last it is refreshing to see that Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Brocoli have completely turned the Bond franchise on its head and come up with an entertaining and highly realistic film. Without a doubt 'Casino Royale' is the best film since 1987's 'The Living Daylights'. Simply because its the first film since then to adapt an original Ian Fleming novel.

Dare I say it...Daniel Craig IS Bond! He is funny, he is suave...but boy is he dangerous. From the stunning pre-credits sequence in which he brutally kills his first two targets...we know that this is a new kind of Bond. A Bond you can believe in. Craig's fight scenes are without a doubt the most realistic fights in the series. The stand-out fight scene takes place in a stairwell and involves a large knife and a lot of blood and body blows. You really feel for him when his crisp white shirt is ruined and covered in crimson blood. There's no smarmy one liner, no joke, just 2 dead bodies and a traumatized Bond girl, who is clearly disturbed by the brutality of Bond. You just cannot imagine Pierce Brosnan in the same scenes.

The interplay between Craig and his leading lady Eva Green is extremely strong and incredibly convincing. They banter off each other and share quips. You can really feel the chemistry between them. Vesper is certainly not just a casual one night fling for 007. Bond falls in love...and you see the relationship develop before your eyes. It's believable.

Another classic scene is when Bond gives Vesper a stunning dress to wear and in return she gives him his customary black dinner jacket. The moment Craig puts it on the first time, looks in the mirror and you hear the faint sounds of the Bond theme tune...you know that Bond is definitely back.

Its a great film full of believable action scenes (the opening chase in Madagascar is breathtaking). There is also pretty much no CGI in the scenes. These are true stunts harking back to the glory days when incredible stunts really made the franchise. A few people have complained about the main villain (Le Chiffre) as being too weak. I for one would have to disagree. Yes, he is not a Dr Evil hell-bent on world domination, but instead he is a real, seedy and incredibly dangerous character. He has faults, he has other enemies apart from Bond...and from the moment you see him puff on his inhaler...you know he has some weaknesses...but that doesn't make him a weak villain. Far from it. His torturing of Bond is incredibly sadistic (lightened by Craig's humor).

Of course nobody is perfect...there ARE a few complaints with the film. The action scenes (though amazing) seem somewhat out of place (an editing issue) and the film is too long (some scenes do drag towards the end). The Bond tune is not used nearly enough and there are a lot of unanswered questions. However, these are just some minor quibbles.

Overall, compared to ALL of the Brosnan films and in fact any other 007 since the 60's this is a great movie. A welcome return to the literary roots of the character. Congratulations Daniel...you would have made Mr Fleming proud! Bond IS indeed back...and here to stay!
9/10
Amazing
fletchy-5735410 April 2021
Of the new daniel craig movies this one is by far the best. Locations are great, mads mikkelsen is a great bad guy, and opening scene is iconic.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond goes back to basics
sme_no_densetsu15 September 2014
"Casino Royale" was the twenty-first movie in the James Bond series and the first with Daniel Craig. The filmmakers took Bond back to his roots and, in the process, reinvigorated the franchise.

In this movie we see Bond at the beginning of his career as a double-0 agent. His first mission finds him matched against Le Chiffre, a financier with ties to terrorist organizations. Bond travels to Montenegro to take part in a high stakes poker tournament with the hopes of bankrupting his target and forcing him to co-operate with the British government in exchange for protection from his creditors.

Daniel Craig marks something of a departure from previous Bonds. He may not be quite as debonair as others but he makes up for that with increased toughness. All things considered, he is perhaps the best Bond since Sean Connery. As for the villain of the piece, the memorable Le Chiffre, he is played with effortless menace by Mads Mikkelsen. Meanwhile, the requisite 'Bond girl' role is admirably filled by Eva Green. Other welcome faces in supporting roles are Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright & Giancarlo Giannini.

Director Martin Campbell helmed the best of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies ("Goldeneye") and here he lent his expertise to the series once again. The black & white intro effectively sets the mood and the Madagascar-set chase scene that follows is arguably the film's high point. For the remainder of the film, Campbell ably handles both the film's action set-pieces and its more restrained moments.

As for the story, it's a compelling one though the movie is perhaps just a bit long at 144 minutes. That being said, while the pace flags a bit in the late stages it nevertheless sets the stage for a memorable and satisfying finale that leaves the viewer wanting more. Unfortunately, "Quantum of Solace" (which continues this storyline) didn't deliver on that potential.

All in all, "Casino Royale" marked a return to form for James Bond and did an excellent job of rebooting the franchise. Both respectful to the source material and free from the series' sillier tendencies, this is a Bond for the new millennium. As I see it, this entry is neck and neck with "Skyfall" as the best of the Daniel Craig Bond movies (which also ranks it among the best Bond movies, period).
10/10
the best
svenfuhrmann18 April 2020
This movie is the best of the whole series. Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig did a great job. I would love it to see them again for a new bond. A Classic.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Casino Royale - Bond's back, but a brand new one!
lasttimeisaw3 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I cannot say Daniel Craig is the best Bond because I'm not a crazy 007 fan and I have only watched previous Pierce Brosnon's 007 movies. But this film proves its a good action and unique movie.

This time Bond was young and a little bit rash, he could be a typical "Bond" gentleman with his beautiful bond girl, gambling gracefully with others in a splendent casino. Also he could fight desperately with villains like a drowned mouse. More like Bourne in "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Identity".

Actions in this flick is simple but powerful, the chasing in the beginning was breathtaking and the fight at stairway was beautifully done! The romantic parts of CR are much more than I expected, and Eva Green definitely has great chemistry with Daniel, she's a talented actress. When the ending was coming, I sighed for her death and was really sorry for young Bond. This experience taught him a good lesson and when you're served for secret services, you cannot trust anyone.

The cast is quite good and love to see my goddess Judi Dench again as M, small part but a distinctive performance as usual, I like Daniel Craig in some small indie films and as Bond, he creates a different one only belongs to himself. Caterina Murino is much beautiful on screen, and I also feel sorry for her role.

If you're expecting a godlike action hero, this film will disappoint you, if you want to experience a super-cool action flick with a twisted love story, this one is for you then! And I was in the middle of these two. Nowadays all the heroes are down on the earth, experiencing shock which normal person will encounter, then audience will satisfy and we all like heroes suffering. Quite weird but that's the taste of audience now.
7/10
a little bit boring as it has been so much talked about it
andreea_katy18 November 2006
I didn't like so much... because i think is a little bit boring and not so willing to see the end of the movie. The others Agent 007,with Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan were much interesting to see.. If i have to see it again..at TV for example i do not do it... Sorry,but this is my opinion. Thank u for letting me tell my own idea about a movie.. bye.. see ya next time, at another James Bond's series.. And to end my idea...I am seeing the end of the movie right now and I think is not the best end of a movie I have ever seen. And another idea,here is my boyfriend too...the principal actor is a good looking one,but it's a little to full of muscles,but not so good in his way of acting...For example,Pierce Brosnan acted naturally,Daniel Craig is more superficial. That is my entire opinion now..
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A truly great 007 film. One of the top 5 of the whole franschise!
pete881120 November 2006
I loved this film. I never had a big problem with Daniel Craig being Bond, but never thought he was ideal either. And after seeing Casino Royale my feelings have not changed. But it wasn't so much Craig's job at playing Bond that made this film great - though he WAS good. It was the writing, the directing, and the cinematography. All of this combined, along with a philosophical shift on the part of the producers, made this a very memorable film. The action was intense and real, but never overdone or staged looking. A lot of action films seem to want to film the action sequences with the goal of making the hero look totally cool and Competent. The action here was more about the characters will and emotions. I have only a few minor complaints about this film. I would like to have seen the opening titles for Casino Royale exactly as they have for the last 20 films, with a circle on the screen following Bond as he walks along before suddenly turning to fire. That was not in this movie. I guess I'm just a bit nostalgic about these sort of things. In terms of music, I would like to have heard the original theme a bit more. But overall this is a great Bond film. It ranks as one of the best of the whole franchise. In the future I hope we continue to see the development of Craig as Bond. And I also hope that some of the features of previous films, like gadgetry, humor, and bizarre villains. These were important aspects in the history of Bond and I would like to see them appropriately integrated into this new era. I would also imagine we'll be meeting a new Q and Moneypenny at some point.
9/10
Casino Royale
jboothmillard30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The James Bond 007 series has been a worldwide success, with five stars already bringing the famous spy to life, but this was a gamble, to reboot the series, seeing how it all started for the leading hero, and it worked, based on the first Ian Fleming novel from writer Paul Haggis (Crash) and director Martin Campbell (GoldenEye, The Mask of Zorro). The film opens with James Bond (BAFTA nominated Daniel Craig) earning his licence to kill and being promoted to double-0 status, designated 007, to do this two kills are needed. Bond then travels to Madagascar and is in a parkour (free running) bomb-maker Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan), against orders Bond kills him, but searching through his mobile phone he traces Alex Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian), an associate of banker and terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). As Bond follows the clues, he wins a 1964 Aston Martin DB5 car in a game of poker against Dimitrios, seduces his wife Solange (Caterina Murino) and foils Le Chiffe's plan to destroy the prototype Skyfleet airliner at Miami International Airport, also killing henchman Carlos (Claudio Santamaria). M (Dame Judi Dench), head of MI6, informs Bond that Le Chiffe has set up a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro, as the best card player in the agency Bond is being put in the game, Le Chiffe is a great card player also, if he wins terrorism will have been funded. Bond is joined by beautiful British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who is protecting government interests, and assisting him posing as his lover to distract the other poker players, and local MI6 contact René Mathis (Hannibal's Giancarlo Giannini) has put pressure on Le Chiffe by having two of his associates arrested. In the tournament Bond tries to read Le Chiffe and catch him bluffing, he loses his initial stake on a misplayed hand, Vesper refuses to give him $5,000,000 to continue playing, Bond frustrated plans to assassinate Le Chiffe, but fellow player and undercover CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) stops him, he gives Bond the stake in exchange for custody of Le Chiffe. Back in the game Bond re-establishes himself, but Le Chiffe attempts to kill him, his girlfriend Valenka (Ivana Milicevic) poisons Bond's drink, he goes into cardiac arrest, but Vesper helps save him at the point of death. In the final phase of the game are four players, Fukutu (Tom So), Infante (Ade), Le Chiffe and Bond, all players go all in, but Bond wins the tournament with a high hand straight flush, all winnings are deposited in a Swiss bank account. Le Chiffe's henchmen capture Vesper and use her as bait to catch Bond, Le Chiffe tortures Bond with him strapped naked to a bottomless chair and smacking his (unseen) testicles with a long rope, but Bond does not give in, Le Chiffe is interrupted and killed for being untrustworthy by his liaison Mr. White (Jesper Christensen). Bond recovers in hospital on Lake Como, Mathis, who was in fact working for Le Chiffe, is arrested, and Bond admits to Vesper that he is in love with her, and posts his resignation to M. Travelling to Venice however, Bond finds out the winnings were never deposited into the Treasury's account, Vesper has stolen it, he pursues her into a building under renovation, a firefight ensues with Bond and the men she was giving the money to, with the inflatable supports holding the building above water punctured. The men are killed and Bond tries to rescue Vesper trapped in an iron-frame lift underwater, but she locks the gate and allows herself to drown, Bond is unable to revive her once on the surface, Mr. White watching nearby walks away with the money. In the end Bond rejoins MI6, he finds out Vesper had a French-Algerian boyfriend, Yusef Kabira, being held by the organisation behind Le Chiffe and Mr. White, they blackmailed her to cooperate, and she was delivering the money to save James's life, the final scene sees Bond tracing Mr. White, capturing him, and introducing himself with his iconic catchphrase, "The name's Bond. James Bond". Also starring Tobias Menzies as Villiers, Sébastien Foucan as Mollaka, Isaach De Bankolé as Steven Obanno, Tsai Chin as Madame Wu, Veruschka von Lehndorff as Gräfin von Wallenstein, Malcolm Sinclair as Dryden, Richard Branson Man at Airport Security and Gunther von Hagens. Craig was a controversial choice, a blonde Bond, but he proved the doubters wrong with a fantastic performance, giving us a Bond with depth, Green is great as his alluring love interest, and Mikkelsen is splendidly sinister as the villain with haemolacria - a damaged eye vessel which causes him to weep blood. The opening black and white sequence seeing Bond become a double-0 is brutal and cool, the film drops Moneypenny, Q and gadgetry and camp humour for a serious and well-written story, filled with fantastic action, stunts, gun and fist fights and chases, the film achieved a Guinness World Record for the crashing Aston Martin DBS rotating seven times, the song "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell is catchy as well, overall a brilliant spy adventure. It won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and was nominated for the Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film, the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for David Arnold, Best Special Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Production Design and Best Adapted Screenplay. James Bond was number 3 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Sex Symbols, and he was number 21 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons. Very good!
8/10
excellent start pro Daniel Craig as the most famous agent of movie theater
miguelneto-7493631 May 2016
Casino Royale is the film that introduced the new James Bond , Daniel Craig, who had a lot of criticism , because not as gallant as the other 007 plus Craig surprised , the film is very good , the cast is great , Eva Green what makes a good performance , beyond being well Sexy, Mads is excellent, it is one of the best villains of all 007 films, the script has some problems , more is good, the dialogues are good , has some moments of humor, the direction of Martin Campbell is very good, the picture is also good , does not have much action , plus the pace is very good , Casino Royale is one of the best James Bond films, with great moments , it was a great start pro Daniel Craig . Note 8.4
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Perhaps the best of the bond films
gws-210 May 2008
This is the best film in the 007 franchise since the Sean Connery era and one of the best ever. Daniel Craig brings a thuggish edginess to the role unseen in any Bond flick since Connery's tenure. I thought there was always something a little too elegant and unserious about the actors who played Bond in those years but Craig has taken care of that this time. I can hardly wait to see the upcoming sequel.

This "Casino Royale" provides a combination of excitement and humor, plus some sadness, not often achieved in the venerable Bond series. In addition to Bond, I thought the elegant and beautiful Eva Green was particularly effective as Bond's love interest. She had an aurora of seriousness and quiet intelligence that served her well.

This may be the best of the Bond films. Highly recommended, 10 out of 10.
3 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig is James Bond...
KineticSeoul20 November 2012
The 007 gets a new bond after Pierce Brosnan. Now Pierce Brosnan was a good James Bond but didn't expect Daniel Craig to be better as James Bond. He just has that ferocity and rawness to him to the point you can actually believe he is going to do whatever it takes to get the job done. But also while being classy and having that charisma that James Bond is known for and Daniel Craig really pulled this very iconic role. So this is kinda the origin story of Bond and the story is tense and entertaining. When I first saw this film in theater I was entertained from start to finish. It's just a really cool movie with a really cool spy you just can't help but like because of his coolness. It also has some good exchange of dialogues to go with the intriguing story while also having good amounts of action. So Martin Campbell nailed all three areas. The sly and yet classy spy elements is blended in really well to the story, so yes it does have it's essence of 007 movies. In fact this is probably the most memorable Bond film so far and I am saying this in the year 2012. All of the cast worked really well into this movie and Eva Green is extravagant as the Bond girl while being really relevant to the story. While the previous Bond movies were a bit over the top and silly this one goes in a more modern and realistic approach. Overall if you like 007 movies I highly recommend you to check it out and for those that aren't there is a chance your going to like this one. The reinvention might be too much for some but in my opinion it did a good job of reaching out to the modern audiences.

9.8/10
7/10
Bond goes classless
Philby-312 December 2006
The critics will have you believe that this Bond is more like Ian Fleming's original character - the super-cool ruthless one-man assassination squad. As was said to the fictional press Baron by his (of necessity) sycophantic editor Salter, "this is true up to a point, Lord Copper". In other words, "not really". The original Bond was a projection of Fleming's own background (rich, upper-class, Eton, Sandhurst), snobbishness and tastes – fast cars, luxury goods, fine liquor, tobacco, disposable women and spying games - into a fantasy world in which he could be the ruthless man of action he never was in real life.

Here, Daniel Craig as Bond is anonymous, classless, a cog in the governmental machine (though not always obedient), a character from "Spooks" in fact who doesn't care whether his martini is stirred or shaken (the bar tender looks quite crestfallen when he say this). His hunky good looks don't look upper-class Brit and he looks like a gorilla in a dinner suit. He does convince in the action sequences.

Speaking of those, they were exciting to watch, particularly the chase across the construction site at a port in Madagascar, but the tensest moments, and the ones nearest to Fleming's book, were the gambling sequences, removed from a small casino in northern France to Montenegro. In the book the game was baccarat, here it's a variation of poker. No doubt it would help to know the rules, but if you don't you just watch who scoops up the chips. Bond's opponent, Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelsen (very big on Danish TV) is quite good-looking and does come across as being only moderately evil; belting Bond's balls with a rope (Bond almost seems to enjoy it) isn't really on a par with Goldfinger's crutch aimed laser, and money laundering for African dictators isn't in the same class as blowing up the world a la Blofeld.

The Bond girl is something of a throwback. Vesper Lynn (Eva Green) is certainly very beautiful and starts off by not liking Bond much, but she crumbles fairly quickly to his charm and becomes the maiden in distress he has to rescue. Bond manages to bed only two women in the whole show, one in the line of duty – it ain't the sixties any more. There is a perfectly fine "M" from Judy Dench, but no Moneypenny or "Q". The great Giancarlo Gianni is tucked away in a minor role as MI6's man in Montenegro but the rest of the cast, who don't have a lot to do, are unremarkable and the cars have very minor roles – no Bentley and just a couple of Aston Martins. There are also some cameos of the "blink and you'll miss them" variety such as Richard Branson at an airport security checkpoint.

Despite the lengthy running time this was an easy movie to sit through. Having set-piece, seat-gripping action pieces intercut with quieter moments all in dazzling locations seems to have the peculiar property of making the viewer lose track of time, or at least lose track of how far into the story we are. The action peaks rather early, before the big poker game, and the Venice Palazzo bit at the end, ingenious though it is, comes almost too late. Still, most Bond films have been like that – a series of action sequences and an episodic plot (if any) and for that reasons not true to the books, which are about tastes and sensations and how it might feel to be a spy, at least if you are an upper class snob. Anyway, this Bond film is successful enough to ensure there will be another one. Look out Osama.
1/10
Ridiculous
crazy_jakes_warehouse22 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie was totally out of sync with the other movies. It takes place in present day, when the story is that Bond is not yet a 00 agent. Also, Daniel Craig lacks even half of the acting ability to portray a character as legendary and well, he totally destroys the bond image. Bond isn't supposed to be nearly as ripped as Daniel Craig is, none of the other actors had the frame that he has. Also, he shows no emotion whatsoever. The poker scene was absolutely atrocious, no poker game in history has ever gone like that, ever. The fact that bond 'has a type' of women is ridiculous, in any other movie, he slept with anything, never even uttered the word type. In this movie, somehow he goes after married women only? And contemplating retirement? HE ISN'T EVEN A 00 AGENT YET. And the end, Bond always gets the girl. This time, he gets nothing, sure he gets 150million dollars, but where is that in any of the other movies? Awful.
7/10
A brave new Bond
bowmanblue15 February 2015
Okay, let me say that the reason I'm reviewing this film several years after its release is because I've decided to give it a second viewing (in the wake of Skyfall's success at the box office).

I've watched all the Bond films, right the way through from Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan and, although they vary slightly depending on the story, I have to say I've loved them all. I love the silliness, the tongue-in-cheekiness, the witty quips and the gadgets.

Then came Casino Royale.

I had no objections to Daniel Craig being named as James Bond (after his part in Layer Cake, I think he proved he had what it took). I didn't even object to the fact that Bond was (sort of) being 'rebooted,' showing how Bond became a 00 agent etc. What I objected to was that, in my opinion, it was NOT Bond. Yes, it had action, ladies and exotic locations, but gone was everything that I thought made Bond Bond.

I watched the whole film and give it a disappointed two stars out of five, admitting that the action sequences were good, but it was more The Bourne Identity than Bond.

However, as the years have gone by and my shock has dwindled, I've re-watched it and come to accept that it does have its merits. Yes, Bond has changed. Maybe it's for the best. Daniel Craig's (current) three outings have been the most financially successful of all the Bond films, so I guess he's appealing to the masses.

This is indeed a 'new slant' on Bond. Gone is what I loved, but it's been replaced by something - now I'm viewing it in the cold light of day - with some ALSO pretty good too.

I appreciated that the plot to Casino Royale was actually a lot more intense than many of its predecessors, plus there was far more reliance on character development, rather than just invisible cars (yes, even I found that one a little hard to swallow in Die Another Day).

Although I will forever enjoy the cheeky charm of 'old' Bond, I will admit that this one has its place alongside it and now am beginning to look forward to the news of a new Bond film in the making.
8/10
this rebirth was necessary
salvu_montalbano23 November 2006
Last year, when Daniel Craig has won the race of becoming the new Bond, a huge campaign has been started with the intention just to discredit Craig. People said he's blonde, people said he's a mollycoddle, they created internet forums and impended to boycott "Casino Royale".

Let's see what has happened in the meantime. First Sir Sean Connery himself stated to believe, Daniel Craig could become one of the best James Bond performers ever. Now the movie has been released in the movie theaters, already with a lot of success. Daniel Craig is still blonde, but he's everything else then a mollycoddle. He's as muscular as Arnie Schwarzenegger in his best times and can suffer as much pain as Bruce "McLane" Willis in his legendary Die Hard performances.

I've read some comments from Bond Fans, who still were extremely disappointed. They're missing all the gadgets, and they miss Q and Moneypenny, everything they got used to during the last 40 years or even more. Come on guys, be honest. All these things started to bore a lot of viewers. Always these ridiculous exploding pencils, these watches with integrated fax station and whatsoever, it was cool in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and maybe, with a lot of good will, it has still been cool in the middle of 90s, but after Goldeneye it started to annoy me, and surely it also annoyed many more of us. Also these jingoistic jokes, these will-less babes, the time has come to do something to rescue James Bond. Otherwise the end of the great Bond era could have been near.

So things have been changed. No funny gadgets, but real and tough action, no babes any more, but one fantastic, attractive, drop-dead gorgeous and intelligent Bond girl, no fights without pain, no desperadoes who can destroy the world by clicking one switch, but therefore a real bad and evil guy.

This movie has become the successful rebirth of a legend, which was about to die off. We all should be glad about this development.

And even people, who just want to watch an entertaining good movie: go to see Casino Royale, it's worth it......
The best Bond ever!
anni_shepherd30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" is in my opinion the best James Bond movie to date. Daniel Craig is the only 007 ever to rival Sean Connery's performance as Bond and maybe even do better. I was happily surprised when I saw the movie, not having any real expectations about it. Still, from the very beginning, the movie had my full attention and captivated me with it's excitement. Craig was incredibly convincing as a more human James Bond being witty and sarcastic, but not taking himself too seriously. Casino Royale is a very realistic Bond-movie, without any silly gadgets or an overdosage of annoying explosions. Everything in the movie feels real, from the first two kills Bond makes to the suits he wears and the car he drives. The filming locations were great. I didn't find the plot too simple, actually it was incredibly interesting. Even the Casino scenes were exciting, though I know hardly anything about poker! Everything was just right, from beginning to end and that's why this movie gets a full 10/10 for me.
2/10
Could not believe it... (Updated)
mickosaer13 November 2006
OK, I'm going to start this review again by apologising to those who are looking forward to an honest and well-made prequel to the James Bond franchise, and also to those people who were offended by my previous comments which led to an abuse report being filed. I've marked the changes to my previous post with a (*) sign. Again, this is simply a personal opinion...

I dislike this film (*). I've grown up with Bond films (favorites? 'Thunderball', 'From Russia, With Love', 'Goldeneye', 'Live and Let Die') and was amazed with how angry i was after seeing this.

To start - given the budget, they should have done a lot better. The action scenes (save possibly the opening flashbacks and admittedly-quite-awesome parkour sequence) are long and boring - and done for all the wrong reasons. They seem too caught-up with trying to make this the 'biggest, baddest, most explosive, etc' Bond film, and have paid little regard to the actual storyline.

Speaking of which, for the first 40-minutes of non-stop explosions i had literally no idea of what was going on. This probably makes me sound like a bit of a retard, but honestly, all this action happens on screen with very little to motivate it. The screenplay is incredibly bad, and it's probably because of this that the film disappoints so much.

A bit now on the new Bond; i like Daniel Craig, and i don't know how much you can judge from this film. He seems to appear topless a lot (*). More-so, in fact, than any Bond-Girl has in any of the Bond-films thus far (*). He also says some awkward and very un-Bond-like lines, and looks menacing from time to time. Once again, the script really is awful. And he isn't helped with the fact that the Sony laptops and mobile-phones are given more close-ups than he is.

The plot, to be fair, is quite complicated, and a lot to fit into one film. Bond has recently been promoted to a double-agent, and his (as we are constantly (*) reminded) arrogance and ego make him a risk. However, after needlessly killing a UK informant, he is allowed to pursue 'Le Chiffre' - a compromised terrorist-banker (?!) who weeps blood and plays high-stakes poker to raise cash.

I wont spoil the rest - if such a thing is possible - but after many twists and double-crosses, the film ends with the whole experience forcing Bond into his hedonistic and shallow future-image. A little more on this - i know the filmmakers wanted Bond to be more 'gritty' and 'dark' than before (providing a back-drop to the other Bond films), but all they've done is make him less confident, less funny, and considerably uncooler than they can get away with.

I wanted to like this film. In short, i could not wait - after a long 2 1/2 hours - for it's surprisingly unclimactic end (*), and I never once felt like being Bond would be one of the best jobs a man could have - the one thing that the entire franchise depends on. Good points? A couple of good lines during the torture sequence, Eva Green looks hot, and Sebastien Foucan does his own stunts. Other bad points - general plot incoherence, (unforgivably) no Q, and the film manages to go to some of the most exotic locations thinkable, and then makes them look completely ordinary. Again, my apologies...
4/10
Well, there were better 007 movies...
MarkoJurkovic25 December 2006
So, as the title says, this isn't the best James Bond. I mean, it's OK, it's good, but not as some older movies like For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and movies like that. It's a bit boring when Bond plays poker...

All in one, I gave Casino Royale the mark of 4.

Summary: IT COULD BE BETTER, it's worst then I expected.

Short content: James Bond gets 007 status, and he goes on his first mission. His goal is to stop dangerous mafia guy, La Chiffre, who uses money he wins playing poker to finance mafia tasks and missions. Bond's way of stopping La Chiffre is to beat him in a poker game, so that he wouldn't have enough money to finance mafia operations.

At the end of the movie, he succeeds.
5/10
My view of this "Bond' film
monagro16 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
To be honest I don't get why people seem so fond of this movie, apart from the fact that they might have hated all the previous ones. I think the casting has been great, actors, scenery, camera, etc all did their job almost perfectly (earning this film 5 stars), but the story writer should be fired and kicked from anything to do with action films and films with a history, as he did not write a James Bond (will explain later), but some really bad romantic film, which made it into something reasonably decent (on the borderline of a waste of time) because of the great actors etc.

Reasons why I did not like it:

  • The importance of the girl - Pls don't make a James Bond movie to enforce feminism, or to let James Bond fall in love with a girl, as he will not ever do that. That is just not him, he uses girls (just as some girls use guys) for the sake of england. I have no problem with the boss of MI6 to be female, but James bond does simply not fall in love and quit his job for a girl.


  • The role of James Bond - James Bond is an extremely knowledgeable, skilled, intelligent, observant, cool (including attracting girls and gadgets) British spy. He does not use brute force to win a fight, but uses the surrounding and skill to win (look at all other James Bond fights, apart from this movie). He does not get emotionally attached to girls, does not fall into reasonably obvious traps, recognizes liars and never loses a betting game, without intending to. This might be a little unrealistic, but that has worked perfectly in all the other James Bond films, keeping the name high.


  • The storyline - This movie had no storyline at all. It starts off with him fighting somewhere (shows a movie of him using brute force instead of skill), then going to a poker game, losing, having to rely on the CIA for money to be able to continue playing, getting poisoned, needing to rely on the girl to help him to survive, winning the poker tournament, not showing anything more of him playing from the part where he lost, him getting tortured, the torturer getting shot, him quitting his job, his girlfriend dying, him killing (you just see the guy die, no clue on how, when or where) some terrorist boss. This is opposite to a fairly simple normal James Bond plot, where you do not think 3 times "Is it finished?" (I remember I did) and actually get to see some action and no torturing or just using brute force.


  • The story of the girl - I don't get it. She started working for criminals, because of her boyfriend of 6 months ago, and then buys out James for $150M, and then dies because of her dealings with the bad guys? Its way too complicated and unrealistic to be true.


Another proof I have for this James Bond film to not be a James Bond film is that I had a holiday girlfriend (lives in north London, met her on Mauritius), who got bored of normal James Bond films, but liked this one, while for me it was exactly the other way around, therefore showing that peopl who usually don't like James Bond like this and vice versa, suggesting this is not a James Bond movie.

P.S. I just read some more comments and i must say I wholeheartly aggree to some of them. James Bond has become a thug, and maybe the new James Bond is not exactly fit to be suphisticated, knowledgeable, skilled, etc enough, or to appear so. I don't know, but this film was definitely the worst James Bond I have ever seen.
9/10
Came into this movie closed minded, came out, blown out of my mind.
qg5921 November 2006
This is a very surprising great movie. I must admit, i thought it was very foolish to have a blond haired looking blond. I grew up with Brosnin so thats what i expected. But Daniel Craigg, does an absolutely excellent job. I think this is because he is his own Bond, he doesn't try and copy Brosnin. He is tougher, more crude, definitely more humorous. You can definitely tell this movie is about him learning the ropes of being a 00 agent. This movie, has great action scenes, which is expected from a bond. But surprisingly, this movie has some very funny parts to it and they aren't cheesy either. This Bond beats all of Brosnins Bonds. And Brosnin was good.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A mixed feeling
djvanderelst25 November 2006
Being a Bond fan and reading the positive critics I got anxious to see the movie.But afterward I got a bit of a mixed feeling on this latest Bond film. On the one hand I thought it was a very good movie which really lets you see how Bond develops in the Bond we all know. On the other hand we see a Bond, who is portrayed by Craig in a convincingly matter, but who looks more like a construction worker than a classy agent. That was my first little problem. My second problem was that the movie was too long. The last part is interesting for the real James Bond fans to see how Bond develops but gets the pace out of the Movie. So from a series perspective its a smart step but from a movie perspective it does not make the movie better. I can not wait for the next Bond movie. With all the positive aspects in this movie and a more developed Bond the next movie has all the elements to be even better.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
James Bond Meets Die Hard
callmealiar223 November 2006
The extravagant action packed Die Hard series with it's big holly wood sets and ruff and tough actors is combined with the smooth touch of the British suave leafier.

Hes not Sean Connery. No one is.

The movie is shot in a close up view like a soap opera i thought. Which makes the characters more forward in the film. The action is crazy. The timing and stunts that were done to create the scenes was very extravagant. It reminded me at many points of the action Scenes in the Die Hard movies. A ruff and tough new Bond , Caig accompanied with massive destruction and edge of your seat intensity really brings Bond into the modern day Hollywood realm of 21st century action films... With a touch of British sophistication.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Nice to have met you Mr Bond
Vashni20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very long review warning right off the top...

This is more like it. I loved Brosnan as the venerable 00-agent, but Die Another Day was painful to watch past the first half an hour. I had become disappointed in the film series that was the original inspiration for my real life name (I'm named after Sean Connery for his turn as 007).

I'm thrilled to say that Casino Royale has effectively "rebooted" the series in my eyes, and the problems that have plagued the movies for decades have finally fallen by the wayside.

First, let me address the naysayers of Mr Craig's turn in the tux. I admit when I first heard the casting choice, I was immensely disappointed. Craig is chiseled, blond, with a piercing blue-eyed stare, and his critics are absolutely right: He has none of the suave sophistication that we've come to expect from our favorite British "secret" agent, and you know what? He's perfect for this role.

This is a Bond that is coming up from the ranks. Little more than an intelligent, highly trained thug in the beginning of the film, he has to come into his own, and for once we get to see it happen. He drinks beer. He sneers at the thought of a tailored dinner jacket (I don't think later Bonds would be caught dead out of tailored clothes), and he's brutal.

In fact, "brutal" probably describes the action in Casino Royale best. From the first horrifically shocking fight in black and white, to the beautifully choreographed chase on foot, to any mêlée Bond gets into, the action is simply brutal. Years and events (including events in Casino Royale) have not taken their toll on Bond yet, and has not smoothed the rough edges down into the iconic figure. He walks away from a life-or-death fight covered in blood, both his own and his opponents, knuckles scraped and bruised, covered in scars both emotionally and physically. He shoves away the emotional toll of killing after his first kill ("It got do you, didn't it Mr Bond?"), and it helps shape him into this nearly raging inferno of what will eventually be alternate layers of psychosis and patriotism. Bond is a functioning (and charismatic) psychopath by the very nature of his job, and here we get to see the ground work of that personality. Bond is also refreshingly human in this outing, as we see him make mistakes, let his ego interfere with his mission, and see him trust, sometimes blindly, to his detriment. In the final scenes, we watch the glaciers start to form around him, built on bedrock of lessons learned in Casino Royale. By the time he utters "Bond, James Bond", he's hurling down the path we all know.

The first half of the film is incredibly taunt and well directed. It moves, almost at a fevered pace at times, never letting the plot slack up. It moves in ways that I'm refreshed to say don't seem to connect immediately with the main plot line, but resolve halfway through when the "real" story begins. From there, the tension is maintained, perhaps not as taunt as the first half of the movie, as we slip back into Mr Flemming's storyline.

In fact, it feels like, once again, Bond is not an action hero, but a spy. He doesn't infiltrate organizations, but he gathers information and uses it to take the next step in his mission. He's in constant contact with M and MI6 in general, and they are more than simply a file folder with the next super villain to kill. Gadgets are blissfully missing from this outing as well, making Bond rely not on Q branch and their science-bending devices, but instead on his brawn and his brains, which unfortunately for Bond, haven't been refined just yet.

Now for the down side, which knocks 2 stars off of this rating. The first is the second half of the film. It definitely sags and has a few "false-endings". Most of these are leftover from the actual story itself, I can tell, but were poorly handled in the movie. In fact, when the real villain is revealed (sort of) towards the end, the entire movie feels derailed instead of kicked up to a higher level.

My second complaint is that the movie suffers from schizophrenia. It is a story in essentially two different decades, separated by half a century. The beginning of the film is pure 21st century, with cell phones, text messaging, and GPS traces. The second half of the story takes place in a casino (and elsewhere), and is so decidedly low-tech that the whole of the movie is disturbed by it. Maybe it's just me though, but when I think of James Bond, I don't think of him frantically txt'ing into his cell like some high school twit. I understand it's a sign of the times, and undoubtedly a very useful tool, but at the same time, it is jarring in the framework of the Bond "universe". Maybe as he becomes more sophisticated he'll use such tools less and less. I can only hope.

Finally, I found that the final plot twist with Vesper was too convenient. It feels like a Deus Ex Machina, very mechanical and tacked on.

However, I do love that they have opened up the "Bondiverse" with the closing of Casino Royale. Instead of the cold war SMERSH and SPECTRE, we have this new, un-named terrorist organization that Bond can be pitted against like in the old classic days of Sean Connery donning the tux. I for one wait to see where the series goes with great anticipation.

8/10 for a wonderful retread of Bond, despite pacing and script issues.
9/10
Glam, Bam, Thank You, M: Non-Bond Virgin Loses It to Daniel Craig
Danusha_Goska25 November 2006
I luuuuved this movie.

It was so good, it redeems all the boring drek I've sat through in movie theaters over the past year and makes me believe in movies all over again.

And I'm not a Bond fan. I've NEVER seen any other Bond film, and I don't care if I ever do.

Two words: Daniel Craig.

Daniel Craig made a huge impression on me in "Munich." While the rest of the excellent cast put in fine performances as international assassins, Daniel Craig appeared to actually *be* an international assassin who had somehow made it onto the movie set. With his tight behind and turquoise eyes, he was easy to look at, as well as being a fine actor.

I vowed to see anything else with Daniel Craig in it that I could see, so I bought my very first ticket to a James Bond movie.

I like chick flix and talky movies. I luuuved "Casino Royale", though, from the opening black and white sequence to Bond's first kills to the funky opening titles to the completely unbelievable but utterly breath taking acrobatic chase sequence across a construction sight.

And I luuved Daniel Craig. Watching him on the big screen, I feel I experience some of what my parents experienced watching high-charisma, Golden-Age stars like Jimmy Cagney. Craig's a bullet: expertly aimed and strictly business. And real, even if the character he's playing is mythic fantasy.

Though Craig makes you believe he's equipped with a license to kill, thoughts, complexity, and vulnerabilities flicker across his face, the way wind flickers across a silk curtain. This makes him so exciting to watch.

And he is a *man.* Oh, after too, too many seasons of boys in men's bodies, of Something About Forty Year Old Virgin Wedding Crashers Breaking Up over One Last Kiss, the Owen Wilsons and Zach Braffs and Jack Blacks, men so immature, so embryonic, their mothers could still legally abort them in some states, I can't tell you how happy this woman is to finally see Daniel Craig, a real, grown up, man on screen, a man who could stand up to legends like John Duke Wayne and hold his own.

"Casino Royale's" sets are glamorous and could make a monk feel envious; the action is furiously paced; the gizmos are fun. Why can't I give this movie a ten instead of a nine? The old Bond series did not pussy foot about who we were all afraid of: "To Russia with Love" named our common enemy. I'm a Slavic person and that stereotyping didn't traumatize me for life. In the post 9-11 world, we are not afraid of Danish men who cry blood, and this movie could have benefited from being a bit more relevant.
New and Improved Bond
Vic_max31 December 2006
Whether you're a Bond fan or not, this movie delivers on both the action scenes and storyline. Gone is the brainless action and gadget-fest. In its place is a rugged, sophisticated and vulnerable character that audiences can relate to.

Basically, the story involves a 'bad guy' who organizes a high-stakes poker match (a game at which he excels) to acquire funds he lost through failed financial speculation. It is also the story of Bond transitioning into his "007" status - so it is where he begins.

It may sound a little dull, but don't be fooled - it's got plenty of action, suspense, and time to develop a liking for the character of Bond.

Some aspects of Bond are updated in accord with the times - for instance, gone are sexual references to females in the opening credits. Although there is still the male magnetism that Bond 'exudes', it seems less over-the-top than in previous movies.

All-in-all, it is a darker and more reflective / sophisticated character that we see and it is an improvement. This is a fine movie for both Bond fans and first-timers.
10/10
What a masterpiece!
Adam_Alqaisi16 January 2022
I have watched all James Bond movies from Dr. No to No Time To Die, I can say without a doubt this is the best James Bond movie and Daniel Craig is the best James Bond also Mads was the best one to do the villain role everything was great about this movie acting, story, lighting,... I have watched that movie 4 to 5 times! And I never felt bored.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best bond movie I've seen in years
Sibbmaster22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig has been criticized much before Casino Royale came out. Bond fans all around the world have been shocked to see a blonde, blue eyed, non-drinker and non-gambler take the role of the respected 007. Daniel Craig has proved to all that he is perfectly well fit for playing James. The screenplay his very well written and has got that twist that no Bond movie has yet been without. Bond shows in this movie a new site of him. For example this is the first Bond movie that I've seen with bond in swimsuit. He is as always a ladies man but not as much as in other 007 films. The movie is darker than the ones before and go back to the days of Sean Connery. Humor and excitement are the best words to describe this new James Bond movie. Casino Royale really lived up to my standards and Daniel Craig will make and excellent Bond in the 3-4 next films.
6/10
Is the new Bond a better Bond?
agmoldham29 November 2006
I've got to say that I'm not really a great lover of the Bond franchise. Whilst some people were up in arms about the new Bond having blonde hair it really didn't stir the same emotions in me. The old Bond movies were totally predictable and when I heard on the grapevine that the new movie was different I was a tad dubious.

Well, I'm pleased to say that the face-lift is good and it's breathed new life into a very tired formula. I can't say that I noticed the blonde hair of Craig and it mattered even less. This is a top notch thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The chemistry in the lover match is good and thee pantomime lines have disappeared. The new Bond is rugged and a guy from the new millennium as opposed to a guy stuck in the sixties.

I suppose most people will have one gripe or another. I found the product placements quite annoying, since I started looking for them after the first few. I was also disappointed that the silhouette ladies were missing from the titles. Most of my teenage wet dreams were inspired by the credits, s maybe it's a good job I was a child of the sixties after all. It's just a shame I had to put up with the last 25 years of Bond movies before waiting for another gem.
7/10
Daniel Craig 🙌🏽
Calicodreamin9 September 2020
All hail the man of the hour Daniel Craig, he slays as ruggedly handsome 007. The storyline is well developed and interesting, though the ploy of bond falling in love with the girl who then double crosses him is a bit cliche. Otherwise, good acting, beautiful cinematography and great action coordination.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Most Impressive Debutant.
tomasg-6981418 March 2016
He was a real trump in the 007 history, the good Daniel Craig. Not too many people had high hopes when revealed who was the next in line to be transfigured to one James Bond.

Neither did I. Mostly because of my lack of experience according to Craig; saw him in "Munich" and some other stuff, but never studied him closely. (Common people was skeptical about a blond Bond too; all right....)

This is maybe my all time favorite 007 movie. I was delighted when leaving the cinemas after the premiere; some decade later I still watch it as Daniel Craig's sensational debut, and (so far) best performance. Nowadays, this movie has the taste of a fine, tasty and well matured wine. (You might reference to Pierce B's "Goldeneye", from which I got the same feeling.)

The new-thinking freshness - who was necessary after Brosnans way too flashy exit - of digging up the "old" Royale story and make something decent of it, was ingenious. James Bond Mk. VI. But from the so called beginning. Confusing? During the Craig years, occasionally I've had hard times not to refer to the Bond movies past, and it's time lines.

A "Back To The Future" state of mind not needed here, that's for sure!!

Formidable casting and a script that hardly sleeps. We got action from the very beginning - true classic opening scene! - and a very good chemistry between newcomer Craig and since long M of Dame Judy Dench. The catchy, smart and suggestive theme song who has great gravity, is a nice take-off for what to come during the show.

Double-crossing, love, betrayal and greed. All the well needed ingredients for a James Bond movie is there. For many fans of the series, Eva Green stands out as the all time favorite female act. (Maybe not mine, but there's always split sentences about everything.)

Otherwise, the cars is there. The charismatic villain. The supporting act from one Felix Leiter. Elements just all right - and enjoyable - for completion.

When the curtain fell after the final scene, Daniel Craig now really was Bond. James Bond.
9/10
I developed a BOND with this movie
eforest7719 July 2012
Okay, that was bad. This movie, however, was most definitely not! I'm saying this as a guy who had never seen a Bond film before - sue me. I knew who the guy was though - who didn't? I went into this movie expecting a pretty good spy film...

...And finished in awe of what it had done. Okay, first off, let's talk about Daniel Craig. First thing I said when I was told Daniel Craig was in this film? "Who's Daniel Craig?" Nevertheless, he was fantastic in this film. Eva Green, as well, was very good (I had never heard of her), as was most of the cast. Mads Mikkelsen...funny name, great actor.

The best thing about this film, in my opinion, is the TENSION. Every single poker match, I was on the edge of my seat. If I had a knife...well, I wouldn't want to cut my TV, so I wouldn't try to cut the tension, but you now what I mean. I COULD if I wanted to. The action scenes were also very well done.

I thought it was a great film, but I did have some minor issues that kept me from giving it a 10/10. I thought the pacing was strange - it was very good pacing, the film went along at a good pace. However, it was just a little odd, and I questioned the needs for certain scenes. I also thought a few certain moments happened a bit too fast and abruptly, but perhaps that was the style of this film.

However, definitely go see it - not if you like action films, or if you like Bond films, but if you like movies in general! It's great.
7/10
Not bad but not as great as the critics said.
tonyjackie12 May 2007
I finally got to watch this movie last night after several of my mates had been raving about it being the best Bond film ever.Mmmmmm,so why wasn't I blown away with it?

The first thing I have to say is that,as with so many movies nowadays,it is definitely too long by at least 20 minutes.If it had lasted about 110 minutes or so it would have been so much better.I must admit that the action scenes are very well done and the movie is great to look at with several gorgeous locations.The story isn't too bad,it just takes a long time to reach it's conclusion.The acting?For the main characters I rated Daniel Craig(James Bond)as very good,Mads Mikkelsen(Le Chiffre) as good,Eva Green(Vesper Lynd) as no more than average with an accent that seemed to alter in several scenes.She didn't convince me as a Bond girl I'm afraid.I have to say also that I found Judi Dench(M) a bit wooden and I have felt that in all of her performances as M so far.

I guess the main talking point here is does Daniel Craig cut it as Bond.I have to say the the stick he got for taking on the role was ridiculous and good for him that he put in such a solid performance under so much pressure.I am still not 100% sure that he is a Bond though,but as an action hero he definitely cuts the mustard and he is the best thing in this movie.

This is not a bad film but I enjoyed Terminator 3 more as an action movie because it moved at a faster pace and the length of the film was just right.I know a lot of people will give me stick for that opinion,but it is one I believe to be true.I was in a dilemma about what score to give this,a 6 or a 7.I finally decided on 7 because Daniel Craig deserves praise for a convincing performance of a character that I am still not sure really suits him.
1/10
Worst Bond Film ever
douglas-kell15 August 2007
I have recently seen this movie and the general opinion is that it is the worst Bond ever. The script was non-existent. it must have taken all of 10 minutes to write the dialogue. Daniel Craig was an OK Bond but not a patch on any of the other actors who have played the lead (poss exception of Dalton who was awful) Please Please lets improve for the next one -I would hate to see the franchise die due to poor writing and execution. Personally bring back Brosnan - His Bonds were excellent. Having watched Die another day the next evening on TV it was a much better film. I did enjoy the score by David Arnold - but that is the best I can say about this movie.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Restores faith in the Bond franchise and earns back its dignity
Movie_Muse_Reviews20 November 2006
It seemed like they couldn't get any worse. After 1996's Goldeneye the downhill string of "Tomorrow Never Dies," "The World is Not Enough," and "Die Another Day" kept bringing Bond to new levels of repetitive gadget-loaded mediocrity, spared only by the suave of Pierce Brosnan . Then comes "Casino Royale," a film which producers claimed would be the rebirth of the franchise. After casting Daniel Craig as the 6th James Bond, the speculation grew as to what direction Bond was actually headed. Now that the film has hit the silver screen, we now have our answer: up, way up.

"Casino Royale" is so well done, that years from now past, present and future Bond fans will wonder how in the world 2002's "Die Another Day" was the film that preceded it. This film is smarter, faster, cooler, funnier, more engaging and in almost every way better than "DAD" and the Brosnan films that came before it. Just when you thought that Barbara Broccoli and crew had no idea what they were doing or which direction to take the franchise in, they completely turn around and in impressive fashion. While Bond was still a financial success with DAD grossing over 400 M world wide, they decided regardless that what they were doing was harmful to the franchise and did something about it, which is most applaudable.

The first wise choice was not only to pick an already existent Bond novel to adapt, but to choose an origin story, going with the very successful Hollywood trend that made films like "Batman Begins" more successful than additionally harmful to their franchise names. They stuck to the origin story and they followed through with it, not simply saying that "this is how Bond came to be a double-O" but showing Bond's first lesson of "trust no one" in a way that brings humanity to a character that has for so long been a distant icon of manliness, coolness and suave and nothing more.

Now on to Daniel Craig. The Bond fanatics were in uproar over the blue-eyed blonde's casting, but they were incredibly off. I don't like to say that I called it, but one merely has to watch Craig's performance in "Layer Cake" to see that Craig is 100% Bond material. His qualities bring Bond to a new level yet also restore some of the classic Sean Connery style. He is far more muscular and imposing than any previous Bond, yet his face is much softer and his expressions and humor more subtle, building on the finesse that has made Bond so successful in the past. Craig's performance makes Brosnan look like a clown in the past 4 movies because he is much more rugged and not overbearingly witty. It also helped Craig's case that the plot and characters were more well-developed in this film, making the humor less punchy and more natural.

The surrounding cast was also very strong. Keeping Judi Dench as M was a wise choice and digging up the talent of Bond girl Eva Green and villain Mads Mikkelsen was also impressive. Green is very fitting for the smart and sophisticated Vesper Lynd. Her unique beauty and wit make her a much stronger bond girl than any of recent--she comes off much more as a leading lady than a sex symbol and her character is much more valued. Mikkelsen also adds to the successful subtleties of the film's characters with the portrayal of villain Le Chiffre.

The bottom line is that Bond is back, and he's bigger and better while still doing what he does best. "Casino Royale" keeps all the elements that are essential Bond and does them well while vastly improving upon the franchise. The action is grittier and more realistic, the romance is more believable than whimsical and the humor is explicit yet more comfortable. The only concerns lie slightly in the film's length and in some of the serious, emotional moments. Those moments, however, are entirely excusable given this film is the first ever to tackle them, and will hopefully then allow for improvement in the next Bond installment which will find itself having a hard time topping its predecessor.
9/10
casino royale
marmar-6978011 June 2020
When i for the first time was watching james bond series,i was in doubt,cause i coudnt choose what film between two was my favourite,it was either goldfinger or casino royale,but now after second rewatch of series i made my decision and that is,even if goldfinger is brilliant film and one of greatest,casino royale become number one for me,craig was in top of his game here and he may give one of best action performances of all time,eva green was perhaps the best bond girl ever and she had some staff to do to,mikkelsen was great as a villain and different approach to him compared to rest of villains makes him unique,casino royale is a must watch for a bond fanatics and it showed how films like this can be awesome
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Sexes production up to disguise the same old stuff
oneloveall8 March 2007
Daniel Craig, winning the much touted debut into one of film's most illustrious franchises, may prove a mild distraction from the encroaching apathy many action fans have found in the distinguished spy series over the years, but I must stress how mild that distraction really seems to be. Despite the repeated attempts at revaluing many tried and true characteristics found with our beloved 007, mainly all stereotypical Bond contrivances remain, an annoying contradiction that when analyzed, borders on artistic condescension. Not to over-think the predictable revamp past the point of missing it's point at mindless entertainment, Casino Royale still sends off too great a mixed signal with an overcompensated production masking the same tired old script.

Sure, a few elements of relevance are sprinkled into the mechanical pace which finally help usher the static character of Mr. Bond into the 21st century (no doubt aided by go-to-guy Paul Haggis's likely minor, though significant script embellishments) but nearly every turn taken inside the detached plot, geared towards building tension against functionary, bland antagonists, feels disappointing and again, especially contradictory given the "fresh paint" approach they were going for. This is especially true given the shady prequel-of-sorts' questionable action sequencing, by and large starting off strong and simmering down into occasional screen slaps of voltage which rescue from overwrought dramatics.

As witnessed through the sensitively dull performance from lead Craig, Casino Royale is all about flash and intrigue, with very little honest style or substance to back up this supposed reinvigoration; Bond's new piercing blue eyes may parallel the production's slightly more visceral and sensual feel, but motivation behind this shallow rebirth still feels strangely lacking. Fans of the series needn't worry; certainly enough viewers have spoken in praise of Craig's turn, largely missing the point of the tired mechanizations that weren't supposed to accompany him downward into I-don't-careville, but one can see any step forward in this oldest action tradition as likely being for the best since we haven't a choice...For if history has taught us anything, it is that the Bond must go On.
8/10
Bond Begins
extravaluejotter21 March 2007
There seem to be quite a few people around the world who have a problem with "Casino Royale". There are even anti-Daniel Craig websites, most of which would have you believe that the 39 year-old English actor and latest 007 is on a par with Osama Bin Laden in the "evil" stakes. Let's try and gain a little perspective here, shall we? The Bond franchise is a string of movies with different actors playing the same central character, most of which conform to a formula invented by Ian Fleming a long time ago, in a beach house far far away. Daniel Craig is simply the latest actor to slip into a tux and order a vodka martini, not the AntiChrist.

A lot of people seem to want the same old 007 formula in their Bond movies, forgetting the stale old guff of the late Roger Moore era when the scripts looked even more tired and drawn than the ageing star. The only reason that the franchise continued for so long with Moore as Bond was because he was used to acting within formulaic constraints. His previous long-running role as "The Saint" on TV definitely helped! I'm not saying that the next Bond movie should be directed by Lars Von Trier and scripted by Baz Luhrman and Gus Van Sant, just that a little re-invention is no bad thing.

Attempts were made to liven things up when Timothy Dalton took over, but the scripts continued to follow Lt Commander Fleming's not-so-secret recipe and Dalton struggled to make anything of the role as the Cold War began to thaw and secret agents went out of fashion. Pierce Brosnan enlivened the role of Bond when he took over (with a more modern take on global politics evident in his movies,) but he too fell victim to the rigidity of the Bond format. "Die Another Day" was as stale and flat as "A View to A Kill". John Cleese simply did not work as Desmond Llewelyn's replacement in the Q Department and Samantha Bond had nowhere to go as Moneypenny after her virtual reality snog with 007 put her character's cards on the table. The Must-have-Q-must-have-Moneypenny rules were in dire need of burning, along with the predictable Bond plot format.

Going back to Ian Fleming's first 007 book from 1953, "Casino Royale" was the perfect opportunity to give James Bond a bit more room to move and for the franchise to develop. Anyone who's read the book will see that the film takes a lot of cues from its source material. Before Fleming started churning out his "Girls, Guns & Gadgets" production line novels (a well-developed formula by the time Sean Connery starred in "Dr No" in 1962,) he initially developed the character of James Bond in "Casino Royale", his original Bond novel.

Criticising this film because it's nothing like "Goldfinger" is like criticising Daniel Craig because he's not Sean Connery. So what if Daniel Craig doesn't have dark hair? The English-as-can-be Bond has been played by a Scot, an Australian, a Welshman and an Irishman in the past. In the light of these liberties, quibbling about Bond's hair colour is pretty desperate.

View "Casino Royale" without judging it against other Bond movies and it stands up well on its own. The action scenes and stunts are bone-jarring, the dialogue is well-written, the plot is functional and the cast performances are of a very high calibre. Compare it to the "Bourne" movies starring Matt Damon and it fares pretty well too. Bourne is the spy thriller benchmark for the new millennium and this new Bond comes pretty close to unsettling the young CIA upstart.

Daniel Craig is a younger, bulkier, blonder Bond and about time too. Long may he reign...
9/10
'Royale' treatment
vip_ebriega5 May 2008
My Take: Slicker, leaner and badder. James Bond is back, and just as good as ever!

Although it's number 22 in the Bond film series, CASINO ROYALE is actually the first Bond movie written by Bond creator Ian Fleming, but I bet you all know that by now. Familiar only as a pre-AUSTIN POWERS spoof with Peter Sellers (which didn't exactly fare well with most critics), this new CASINO ROYALE won't just be a superb new entry in the Bond film canon, this is a spectacular reboot to the series, a new James Bond, and the new Bond, Daniel Craig, fits the bill. He's potent as an action hero as he is an actor.

CASINO ROYALE is also a different kind of Bond film, well, at least for a long time. Not since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE has their been a Bond devoted to script than action, but unlike George Lazenby, Craig provides an above-adequate performance that doesn't make him a tiresome or boring. Due to it's lack of the daredevil and nearly impossible stunt work and action scenes, CASINO ROYALE feels different and fans may find it unsettling, but the substitute is a welcome approach, and it results into one of the toughest, roughest and most seriously satisfying Bond film since 1989's LICENCE TO KILL.

The film isn't another mission for Bond, but actually his first mission. After being promoted to 00 status, after successfully assassinating two victims ("to become a 00, you must need two."), by his boss M (Judi Dench). Bond is sent to find Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker to the world's most dangerous terrorists, who owes a great deal of money. To earn back his losses, Le Chiffre intends to win it in a poker tournament at Casino Royale in Montenegro. Bond's first mission is to prevent him from winning and win the money, disclosing the names of the terrorists. Along his side is British accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the beauty that first catches Bond's eyes. Giancarlo Giannini plays Mathis while Jeffrey Wright plays the "brother from Langley" Felix Leiter.

With excitement mostly pitched on poker tournaments and torture scenes (one of the film's most potent and memorable scenes), CASINO ROYALE is both darker and different than the likes of its predecessors. The fact that Bond must successfully assassinate two people before being promoted would seem too dark for the likes of the Bond we knew from Sean Connery, Roger Moore and even Timothy Dalton (who once held the record as the most serious Bond actor). The film's trademark line "Bond, James Bond" isn't mentioned until the last scene. When pursuing the baddie, Bond does it in style, but very seriously. Hell, Bond doesn't even give a damn if his martini's shaken or stirred! This is not the Bond you've got to know since 1962's DR. NO up to 2002's DIE ANOTHER DAY. No, but this is great Bond. Although serious and often vigilante, Bond is still hammered with humor, making Craig's outing the perfect Bond for the new century.

Director Martin Campbell makes a triumphant return to the director's chair after GOLDENEYE, making the film serious yet exciting as possible. The script is dead serious for most of the parts, but doesn't spare us our craving for bits of humor (when M complains about Bond's vigilante ways in pursuit of a bad guy, Bond replies "Next time, I'll shoot the cameras first") as well as some neat action scenes, notably a chase through an airport that is just as exciting even without being as daredevil. The acting here is even better. Besides Craig, Judi Dench makes an ideal M. If you can ignore the continuity that M is already a lady even before Bond was even a 00, then you'll truly be convinced by this M, a true boss. Ms Green's performance as Vesper ranks as one of the best Bond girl actresses. Although running a long 144 minutes, the film is devoid of boredom. Even with scenes that often lag, the excitement and show-stopping scenes overcome them.

I'd rank CASINO ROYALE is one of the best Bond in years, but any comparison, good or bad, I think, would be quite unfair. Being that this is different from its predecessors, it is just right for CASINO ROYALE to be great as a Bond film unlike the Bond films before. With that, CASINO ROYALE is pure, intelligent and well-written entertainment.

Rating: ****1/2 out of 5.
10/10
The best bond and the best bond flick till date
vijesht-117 November 2006
Daniel Craig definitely steals the show. He brings brutal toughness to the character along with the traditional suaveness in an effortless manner.

Craig and Martin Campbell definitely have taken the film series "somewhere it's never gone before". Bond no longer has the cold war hangover. There are no exorbitantly built sets,with the only purpose of dazzling the audience. The only things that dazzle the audience in this movie are Daniel Craig, the Character buildup and the story telling by Martin.

At last we get to see some raw action instead of irritatingly distractive show-off of gadgetry. We get to see the BOND........

The Bond is back....... and he is here to stay...
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Fantastic Bond Film
alindsayal16 December 2021
With No Time To Die finally set to hit cinemas in a few weeks, I thought it was time to go back and watch the other Daniel Craig Bond films and that starts with Casino Royale and here is my review for it. The premise of the film sees a newly minted 007 have to win a high level poker game in order to stop a criminal funding terrorism.

Main Character This was Daniel Craig's first time in the role and I thought he did a fantastic job as James Bond in the film. He is super intense and basically plays a cold hearted killer, but it really works and Craig nails this action machine that easily makes him the deadliest Bond and one that fits the modern age for sure. When he needs to put the charm on he does a good job and I thought the combination of the two really worked for the role that was needed here.

Supporting Characters Eva Green plays Vesper and she is truly brilliant, for years we have seen Bond Girls be damsels that are submissive to Bond but that isn't the case here. She matches Bond for smarts and intelligence with her being her own character that has development and I really liked how the two of them progress throughout the film. Mads Mikkelsen plays Le Chiffre our villain here and he is also great, this is a desperate man who feels pretty human despite of the terrible things he does and I really liked how this bought him to Bond. Judi Dench reprises her role as M and she is just great, I really like her and Craig's dynamic and she feels like a mum who is pushing her son but gets frustrated all of the time and it works well here. Giancarlo Giannini and Jeffrey Wright both have roles here and are effective despite their limited screen time.

Story The story is really good, seeing this relatively new 007 is fascinating and it feels like this world is updated and is done really well. The stakes are really high and the scenes at the poker table are so effective and tension building with great characters throughout. Literally my only issue is that I feel like the film goes on for too long. The final 20 mins feel unnecessary and for me could have been cut and used as the start too the sequel and would have been much more effective.

Script The script is really good, the mix of drama and humour is really well done and due to Craig's charisma it is really effective but it allows him to build relationships with the other characters and create an interesting journey for us to watch.

Style The action is fantastic, this action is brutal and has some of the best stuntwork that you will ever see in a film. This film has one of the best parkour chase and car crash scenes that I have ever seen and credit has to be given to the crew to really make this action seem less silly and way more intense and destructive.

Overall Overall, Casino Royale is a fantastic film. It stands out as a top level Bond film but also a top level film in general and if you haven't seen it then you should as if you like action this is the one for you.

Rating - 9/10.
1/10
Worst Bond film so far
grahamwebb200025 January 2008
This film is often hailed as "the best Bond film so far", but this attempt really is the opposite. It lacks any of the defining characteristics that would have made it a 'Bond film'. It is instead a sad reflection of modern values and lack of class and style.

The opening title sequence carelessly does away with the famous bond theme tune and sumptuous graphics, in favour of low budget animated clips of a fight sequence. This was the first failing, by giving emphasis to the dirty acts of espionage that are lowest in the esteem of any upright British secret service agent. The first defining rule of a bond film, that violence be underplayed against gentlemanly acts, was lost straight away. The lack British composure was absent throughout this typically American production. The tacky titles were followed by an overblown and implausible 'action sequence', followed by a few hours of tenuous product placements, sloppy clichés and no sign whatsoever that the viewer would be lead through an episode of Mr Bond's life. It was a display of modern tactlessness, grimaces, arrogance, personal failings, lust, greed and on and on and on, with as much class, style and panache as the bling generation that hail this as "the best so far". Even the once statesmanly croupiers, with a diplomacy comparable to the Civil Service scowled from the gutter.

When Mr Flemming went undercover in 1964 he was followed by one Mr J.Bond, never to be seen again. Please do not foist this commercial junk on the uneducated masses, under the name of James Bond.
6/10
Bond: No, don't worry, you're not my type. Lynd: Smart? Bond: Single.
bombersflyup30 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is a decent film, though not in the Bond mold.

They had to change things up, after the overdone "Die Another Day," but it's just not really Bond is it. The film's lacking high points and Craig himself pretty monotone. The opening sequence, the credits and song by Chris Cornell, all entirely forgettable. The poker itself isn't interesting, because that's not what poker is. All the rarest of hands, you'd be folding for days to get one and when you do your opponent's likely to have nothing anyway. Eva Green's okay, could of been better though. Mikkelsen's good, but his role's a bit limited, that torture scene's brutal. M gets a lot of screen-time in these Craig films, which isn't a good thing. Like last time with Miranda Frost, we failed to look into one of our own. Jeez you guys are good at your job. In terms of the Bond mold, the opening sequence, the credits, Craig's lack of suave and the fun missing. Not bad, but not Bond.
10/10
Not only the best Bond film... One of the best films ever!
caladin22 November 2006
I Did not expect to weep at the end of a James Bond movie... but I did. Not since Braveheart has a movie created so much emotion and inspiration in me. Daniel Craig (spelling?) shut all the critics up. He was mesmerizing. His eyes and confidence were elemental. I never doubted once that he could do these extraordinary things. The plot was great, simple and suave. The action was not over the top but in an amazing way brutally realistic. The lead female was a real woman, beautiful! No plastic! When she was fully clothed in the shower and James Bond just sat with her... that was the best love scene in any James Bond movie and nothing happened. Mr. Craig, if you read these... keep making these and never quit. You are the new James Bond and frankly the best.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Pretty impressive, but far from perfect
DonFishies17 November 2006
Sometime in 1996, I randomly rented a movie called Goldeneye. It turned out to be a really good movie and only after seeing it, did I find out that James Bond was actually a character in a long-running series. I became hooked on the series soon after. Being quite the fan, I was terribly disappointed by Die Another Day, but still loved Pierce Brosnan as Bond. So when Daniel Craig, an actor who has never impressed me at all, was signed on to play Bond in a remake of Casino Royale, I became a little disappointed right away. I saw it anyway, and to my surprise, was impressed for the most part.

If I really go into the plot, I may ruin it, but suffice to say, the film is about James Bond's (Craig) first assignment as 007. After he botches the apprehension of a bomb-maker in Madagascar, he stumbles upon the code word "Elipsis". Not knowing what it means, he chases the leads, and eventually ends up at a fairly high stakes poker game at the titular casino, involving the obviously villainous gambling addict Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson).

The film is not really deep at all, but it still does a good job. When they say that the film is darker and grittier, they really mean that it is just really violent. Die Another Day was plenty darker than this film. Same goes for the "realism". Yes, Bond takes a number of hard beatings throughout the film, but scenes like the fight in Madagascar near the beginning of the film are just as ridiculous as Bond films always have been. Not to say it is not well done or anything, but it is just as silly and over-the-top as one should expect. The film also contains the trademark cheesy dialogue, blatant sexual humour and badass one-liners from Bond himself. There are plenty of nods and homages to the earlier films as well (from Craig walking out of the ocean much akin to Ursula Andress in Dr. No, or his winning of a 1964 Aston Martin straight out of Goldfinger), and all are so successfully tucked into the film that only true Bond-philes will be able to pick up on them.

As a Bond fan, I was quick to dismiss Craig as a bad pick for James Bond, but I was very impressed with how he pulled it off. Yes, he needs to work on the charm and charisma that made Sean Connery and Brosnan's portrayals so irresistibly cool, but his valiant first effort is very well done. He is convincing as the hero that we all know and love, and he does justice to the role. I did like seeing him actually make mistakes, and I did like seeing him not always win. The ego and rebel attitude he exhibits throughout the movie is very well performed, but as the film nears its finale, it becomes a little excessive. He is an amateur and the filmmakers just seem to want to drill us with this ideal until they are blue (like his way too prevalent eyes) in the face. I was still unsure about Craig during the film, but after finally hearing him say "Bond, James Bond", I knew he was an alright pick.

The supporting cast all do pretty well for themselves in their small roles. Mikkelson as Le Chiffre practically sizzles on screen, but is given far too little time to really develop. Same goes for Caterino Murino and Jeffrey Wright, who clearly look and feel underwritten. Judi Dench puts in another excellent performance as M, and it was great to see her finally letting loose in a few sequences. She was way too mellow in the last few films for her own good. Eva Green does great as Vesper Lynd, and despite some fairly inane dialogue, was great to see play off of Craig. She has just the right amount of attitude and sexiness for the role, and she never feels like she is getting too silly for her own good (unlike Halle Berry or Denise Richards just to name a few). She is a strong female character, and she holds her own against everyone else in the film, and does it with just the right amount of class that to be seen as a proper Bond girl.

My only real problem with the film (other than a complete halt in the third that the film barely recovers from) is in the fact that it is contemporary. People are using cell phones, laptops, M is a girl, 9/11 and the war on terrorism are heavily prevalent themes. Now if this was not a really lengthy franchise, I would not have a huge issue. But after 20 films, they wanted to go back and redo it. Okay, that's fine. It worked for Batman Begins, and it worked for Superman Returns. But they left out things from the other films. Here, they seem to want us to just think that Bond randomly went from superstar double-0 agent, to a beginner within a four year span. It does not fit in right, and it sure as hell is never explained the way it should have been. It feels like a terribly awkward transition, and despite all of its greatness, makes the film really fall down a few notches. They could have at least set the film a few years ago, not in the present day. How is it supposed to jive continuity wise if there is better technology here than in any of the other films?

In the end, the movie feels fresh, and is a definite step in the right direction for Bond. Now if only Craig can really grasp what it takes to truly be Bond in the next film and the filmmakers decide on how they want to make the film work against the others, will we truly get the Bond picture that we all really will praise.

8/10.
10/10
*in shock*
ihatespike17 August 2008
To start off let me say I was not a fan. James Bond has always been an interesting watch when I'm bored but I never liked the character; I thought he was a pompous womanizer and the corny lines and gadgets annoyed me greatly. Bravo to the restarting of this series and I really mean it; this kind of movie helps you get to care about the character in a whole new way. No he's no saint but at the same time I'm finally allowed the courtesy of caring about James Bond instead of the usual Hollywood assumption that I will care just because he's on the front cover and is clearly the protagonist. The first good sign is that I don't recall seeing a single dancing woman in the credits...instead we see the Bond figure and playing cards. I don't know about anyone else but the half naked women in the previous crediting irked me and I'm not even a feminist so my hat's off for breaking that repulsively juvenile tradition. There is a love interest but here's the kicker; I was interested! No quick introduction only to be bedded and double-crossed before the credits, in fact the entire movie I was waiting in growing fear that this so-far good film would be dashed to pieces by the usual cheap plot twists and such; I don't want to spoil anything but it wasn't what I'd seen before and it didn't leave me feeling cheated but rather set things up for the next movie which I'm sorry to say I've been ignoring until now under the assumption it was...well the jaded English snob I'd come to hate. The sexuality was tasteful and modest, the acting was very compelling, the story shocked my shoes off for the simple fact that it finally got an ounce of self-respect which is all I ask of any action movie (or any movie for that matter but action flicks seem to struggle with this one the most), there were corny lines but they were executed with a wry sense of humor as if to say "we're only being goofy, who would actually talk like this? *nudge nudge*" and although I'm already a fan of Daniel Craig I'm very happy to see his work in this didn't disgust me (take for example Jason Statham playing in garbage like crank and Clive Owen in shoot em up) And there you have it; before I was someone who would watch Bond films only in an environment of open ridicule and boredom and suddenly I'm intrigued....I guess now I can call myself a fan.
6/10
Is it just me?
kemboja28 November 2006
I don't know about everyone saying this is the best bond movie (well, since the 60s anyway) because I thought the show was hilarious! I was laughing so hard, I cried. I mean, it was so cheesy! Yes, I know, all the Bond movie was cheesy (the cheesiest being The World Is Not Enough - yup, the one with Denise Richards as Dr. Christmas). The thing is, the rest of the Bond movies was not so serious - it was done with a mischievous air about them. However, Casino Royale tries really hard to be super serious, and that was why I think it was funny. The scenes that got me in stitches were...

1. The beginning started really well, all noir and sleek with violent flashbacks of a bathroom fight. Stylish, dark and interesting...and then when you least expect it...JB turns with the signature Bond pose!

2. JB was chasing an African man...the man is a Parkour expert and he is jumping over building and dodging obstacles, very agile. Hot on his pursuit is JB. So this man tries to escape by jumping through a small rectangle opening in a wall. And what did JB did? He ran through the wall - wow what finesse!

3. You know how all JB movies have the leading girls came out of the water in bathing suits? Well, this didn't happen in this movie because JB himself emerged from the water, dripping wet. Most girls appreciated this scene.

Anyway, I gave a score of 6 because it made me laugh so hard. And minus one for Eva Greens grating voice I found so irritating.
7/10
It's The Next One That Counts!
benjamin_lappin13 April 2007
The philosophy required for new Bond arrivals is "give them a chance", and this is precisely what I did. I saw no purpose in pre-slagging off Daniel Craig for not fulfilling the cyber boys Bondian requirements (despite his being more like the Fleming Bond). However, I don't feel as if Casino Royale will be the film by which Craig will be judged, but the next one that is of paramount importance.

Casino Royale has been given the Batman Begins treatment in terms of reverting back through time to point out the pitfalls and pivotal moments which created the Bond we all grew up knowing. Now, Casino Royale works on the premise that for the past however many years Bond has been in decline. Possibly true. However, that is neglecting Goldeneye (which staved the campness for a gritty story), and possibly the first half of 'Tomorrow Never Dies'. And by neglecting this, we have our problem.

Where do we go from here? If Bond continues on this path, the "old" styled enjoyment will forever be confined to make way for a more self indulgent and seemingly serious series. While possibly not a bad thing unto itself it will only be a matter of time before there is uproar and the whole saga will have to shift once more. However, revert back to the "old" style of Q (or T whichever name John Cleese goes by), and Casino Royale becomes redundant. A self serving exercise which doesn't tie in with the other movies, which has to be frank a somewhat cringe worthy finale.

This isn't to say Casino Royale is a bad movie. Far from it. It is hugely entertaining, and presents itself well and carries a greater deal of plausibility than many other Bonds films. But then does that strip Casino of the Bond essence? Is it merely Bondman Begins? Rhetorical questioning which only everyone as individuals have answers to. Royale is a damned decent action spy fest with a peppering of thriller for good measure, and to be equally frank Craig is not a bad Bond. While some say he may have the visual resemblance to that of Golum, it is irrelevant as he carries off the necessary task of performing Bond for this particular Bond film. But as I have alluded to with this entire review, the direction taken in the next step of the saga will be pivotal as to deciding whether or not Craig is worthy of the mantel. If the affair is another no-nonsense outing then perhaps Craig will slot himself nicely in the #2 spot. Perhaps some viewers will perceive him as being the #1 and credited with reinventing a dieing series and giving it some much needed gravitas. However if the "sequel" proves itself to be too much of an "old" styled Bond film, will Craig be able to cope, and through this that Casino Royales status in modern cinema will either increase or diminish.

Bond has begun, but like the Batman he cannot conquer the world as a mere man. Let us see whether it be gadgetry or gallantry that continue the legend, or whether it be confined to mythical status, having flown too close to the sun.
7/10
What hand will 007 x 21 give you?
janos45116 November 2006
The twenty-first (21!) James Bond flick is expertly directed, well acted, beautifully photographed. It is solid entertainment. So why only seven stars? Because it is entertainment and no more. Before hurling words such as "snob" and "curmudgeon" at me, consider that it's entirely possibly - and highly desirable - for food (and movies) to be both tasty and nutritious. "Casino Royale" is excellent, glorious... popcorn.

The reason to bring this up right at the top is that "Casino Royale" hints at substance, of character development, of depth - but it doesn't deliver. The new Bond, Daniel Craig, is more complex than most of the macho cardboard figures of the past. He has some "issues," some vulnerabilities, and he falls in love the way no flashy establishment killer should. (Speaking of killers, British intelligence is using the new film for recruiting, while denying that agents, of any rank, have a "license to kill.") Twenty-one in the series of films is not the only impressive figure. It's been a half a century-plus since Ian Fleming wrote "Casino Royale," his first James Bond novel, and 40 years since the appearance of the first film version. You know when a series has "legs" when you start repeating titles.

Four decades is a long time. With a changing world, there is a different script, involving - of course - terrorists. And those who finance them. You finance terrorists by selling weapons of mass destruction, or, once Bond catches you or blows up your weapons, by playing Texas Holdem at the Casino Royale. (Neal Purvis and Robert Wade are responsible for the screenplay.) Martin Campbell (of two Zorro movies and of "Vertical Limit") directed "Casino Royale" smoothly and expertly, but unable to overcome instances of banality in the script. Campbell is also perhaps partially responsible (along with producers) for the 144-minute length of the film, which you may regard as "getting your money's worth" or as excessive, resulting in bang-bang scenes that go on and on.

The women of the new Bond are less pulchritudinous than the model/bunnies of the past, and have more soul... up to a point. Eva Green, Caterina Murino, and Ivana Milicevic are entertaining and forgettable, even as the film itself is. The great Judi Dench, as M, is great indeed, presenting a memorable character with marvelous economy. Giancarlo Giannini, as Mathis, is a class act, as always. The new super-villain is a Danish actor, Mads Mikkelsen, playing Le Chiffre. He is scary enough, especially when - rather routinely - a smidgen of blood is discharged from his eye for no discernible reason.

Bond's Aston Martin has fewer visible gadgets than those of the old times, but its glove compartment is conveniently furnished with a defibrillator. Just as there is an invariable rule in the theater that if you show a gun in act one, somebody will be shot in act two, if there is a defibrillator in your glove compartment, somebody's heart is going to stop (temporarily, one hopes). However, there will be no spoiler here about the identity of the victim or the outcome of the medical procedure. If there is one thing you don't want to do with a James Bond movie is tell who wins in the end.
5/10
woof
metropical3 July 2021
Though I like DC in some things, this was not a vehicle for him.

The script is dumb and has at least 3 endings and goes on way tooooooo long.

Always fun to see Eva Green, but this was not for her either.

The best part is the opening scene in Africa.

After that, consider watching Titanick if for no other reason than to hear the theme song and watch your pets run for the hills.

Or mowing your nose hairs.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
007 saves the world from bad guys, again (yawn).
sarasvatia17 November 2006
The shoot by numbers formula for this tired franchise is showing its age. The latest installment may resonate with old aficionados and boys who have not yet become addicted to the multitude of electronic options in the 'out there'. Yes, the mainstays are still there: the fetching women, the motherly boss as hen-in-chief, the picture postcard pretty locations, fast cars speeding along busy streets, pockmarked villains... Absent are the outragous and fanciful tools of the trade: has reality caught up with imagination or the writers lack the latter? The new 007, played by the beefed up Daniel Craig, takes himself far to seriously. The charm of the previous incarnations came from the quick wit uttered with a nudge-nudge and a wink- wink. Brains vs brawn was the reason for 007's success among the flaccid plodders tied to a lifetime on the office chain gang. The franchise owners ought to go out into the real world more often: the Sixties are no more. The world is older by two generations and the mores have changed: rethink or retire The Agent.
11 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Punchy!
waynesjohn23 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If this Bond were to fight the other Bonds in a knock-out tournament then he'd annihilate Brosnan in round 1, flatten Moore with a glance, pull the Aussie's head off in 20 seconds, murder the Welshman and possibly break into a light sweat whilst tearing Sean Connery's ears off. I reckon he'd probably do OK against Superman, Godzilla and the X-Men.

Great movie; gritty, punchy and above all a genuine attempt to reset the series in an altogether more unpleasant reality. I think they succeeded thanks to both the chicks dying, some proper fighting, and a web of bad guys (of which we have only seen the very tip of the iceberg) rather than just one guy with an absurd scheme to blow up the planet. No silly henchmen was a plus too! Go and see it. You'll like it.
10/10
Best Bond since Connery
samratrc141720 November 2006
Bond is back and with a bang. I admit in the beginning i was very sceptical about Daniel Craig being Bond. He did not look the part.I thought Hugh Jackman would have made a very suave Bond. Brosnan was suave but i was tired of the one line double entendres that were written into the scripts. Sean Connery was the definitive Bond as he had that presence and the raw menace of a person with a "license to kill". Daniel Craig brings that back.He is lean and physically fit and is already a proved actor.And he also brings a Steve McQueen 'coolness' to the role.His introduction to the audience with an Honey Ryder style emergence from the sea in a bathing trunk is a great way to pay tribute to Dr.No - Where the legend/legacy was created. I was hoping that the series doesn't go back to the 'action-comedy-farce' era of Roger Moore (very good in his aristocratic demeanor but a secret agent-NO WAY).

The story is not overtly complicated. It goes back to the beginning-where it all started.That's refreshing for a change-a prequel.It has extremely gorgeous women. Eva Green(Benardo Bertalucci had remarked that she is so beautiful that its obscene) takes my breath away(most French actresses do). One thing i am grateful for is the lack of CGI. Its good old stunt work just like the old days. I'm no sexist but in the old films i was used to seeing Bernard Lee as M and since it is about the beginning where M was a man, Judi Dench (fabulous actress though)is a tad miscast.The villain wasn't villainous enough (remember Goldfinger,Blofeld?). All in all a great 'Craig' experience. Hope the next 2 installments with him are as good. Bravo!! Encore!!
10/10
Possibly the best Bond ever
nicenick7 December 2006
I enjoyed the Brosnan films, they were slick and fantastical but Casino Royale brings Bond back to earth with a bump, and what a bump! This is a thriller in the true sense of the word, violent and gritty, it zips along at a great pace, fantastic stuff.

The new Casino Royale also brings Bond right up-to-date, we've known and loved the character for years and now they have cleverly re-invented him for a new generation. The gadgets and corny one-liners are gone and we are left with something which is much more believable.

Crucially the film remains reasonably true to the book and it is a lot better for it, rather like On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It's difficult to make direct comparisons with previous Bonds as they are all products of their time but this is up there with the best of them.

It must be gratifying for Daniel Craig, after all the criticism he initially received, to realise that he and the rest of the team got it right.

This will be a hard act to follow, here's hoping for more of the same.
8/10
We now have a new and different Bond
the-movie-guy17 November 2006
(Synopsis) If you have ever wondered how James Bond (Daniel Craig) got his "007" status, and what happened on his first mission for the British Secret Service? Casino Royale tells all. The Service has identified Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) to be a terrorist's moneyman and banker. After losing over $100 million of the terrorist's money in the stock market, Le Chiffre must replace the money by entering a high-stakes poker game. MI6 (Judi Dench) sends James Bond to Montenegro to enter the game at the Casino Royale and play against Le Chiffre to take him down. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is a Treasury accountant assigned to deliver the government's money to James and to watch over him during the game. Soon James must survive many attempts on his life because Le Chiffre knows that James is out to get him. With the help of the local field agent, Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), and the CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), James might survive this assignment.

(My Comment) This is the first movie for Daniel Craig as James Bond. When I first saw the Casino Royale movie trailer, I thought that he didn't look like a James Bond, but I have changed my mind. Not only is Daniel Craig a Bond, but he brings a new style to the role different from all the other Bonds. He is charming when he needs to be, and totally convincing in the action scenes, because he actually has the physical capability to play the part. The storyline has its share of action and character development and depends little on incredible gadgets. The movie has a different feel to it from the other Bond movies. Bond is learning to be the Bond that we know today. The poker game at the Casino Royale is the longest and most absorbing scene, realistic and entertaining in itself. And of course, the classic chase scenes and shootouts are all part of a James Bond movie. The foot chase scene of the two men at the beginning is outstanding. There is one scene at the end where, especially, the men in the audience will actually feel the pain that Bond is feeling. This is a different remake that is better than the first. We now have a new Bond. (Sony Pictures, Run time 2:24, Rated PG-13)(8/10)
1/10
Tripe
vince_jeevar31 May 2009
I have to be honest, I held off on this because I never saw Craig as a Bond figure. Clive Owen would have been my pick. Having just watched it, I have to say this is the most un-Bond movie I have ever seen. No car chases, very few explosions, no gadgets, nothing.

It went on far too long, had too little back story for the baddies and too little action by far. It starts Bond at the beginning of his career, yet talks about 9/11 as a past event. There is no continuity to the rest of the series.

That said, I am now convinced that Craig could do the job as Bond if given a proper Bond role instead of this toned down stuff.

As a stand-alone movie I would give it 7 out of 10, but as a part of the Bond franchise it scores 0.
10/10
Back to Bond
tim-haines19 November 2006
Daniel Craig is by far the best yet. Having seen Daniel's performances in Layer Cake and Archangel, to mention just two of his long line of successful performances, I couldn't wait for Casino Royale, and I wasn't disappointed. Craig's Bond is a gritty, confident ( without being arrogant, pompous, brash or big headed ) hard nosed machine with a job to do, and he certainly gets it done !!

This movie isn't for the tech heads, no outrageous impossible gadgets, more believability, lots of action, no silliness, but still with some great one liners and very funny moments. Its hard to believe it has taken 21 films to finally reveal the true James Bond, the Bond that Flemming wrote his books about. Some of the previous 007 films were good, some where not so good, and some were just down right overindulgent fantasy, but Casino Royale is in my opinion, by far the best 007 film yet.

Please don't do a Lazenby on us Daniel, stick around for at least a few more Bonds. Cannot wait for the next one ! Truly superb.
9/10
Royally the best Bond
thesar-212 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was definitely skeptical at first upon hearing the departure of Brosnan (and how they got rid of him), yet another reboot, a relatively unknown who didn't look like Bond and even at the title song that didn't match the movie's name (Yes, this isn't new, but the most recent entries, the ones I'm most familiar with had it.) Yet, that all changed when I saw 'Casino Royale' which is my absolute favorite Bond film.

I did end up loving the title song (it's also my favorite Bond theme song), the score is one of my favorites – of any movie and Craig did an excellent job at portraying human, (emotional and unemotional,) spy and action hero.

It also doesn't hurt that I love poker and even those scenes were exciting, though unrealistic. For example, it maybe one thing to work your opponent all-in with your trip Aces to his three Kings, but the final hand – can't give that away, but the odds of four great hands – all on the final hand dealt – was laughable to me. And ironically enough, most poker movies, aside from 'Rounders,' are a complete bore, so at least this one made it exciting.

The only other flaw I could think of was the length; oh, how they could have cut 30 minutes out of this. (SEE: the train and rehabilitation scenes.) Nevertheless, to me, it had everything in, ah hem, spades: espionage, tons of action, beautiful cinematography (including extremely realistic CGI/green-screen, you didn't really think they were up on those cranes, did you?), dialogue, beautiful women, comedy, twists, cons and wonderful worldwide locales. I even loved the immediate and stylish B&W opening which shows some action, followed by the opening song/credits and boom: a thrilling chase scene – my favorite of the many great ones in the film.

The movie starts with a bang, and quickly gets Bond his double-0 status. He's quickly establishes himself as worthy of the job and is on the trail of a terrorist banker.

Though some might complain by comparing it to previous Bond films, I didn't at all. This is a REBOOT - i.e. a new start. If they just threw in the absent Q and his gadgets, a suped-up vehicle, Bond that flies to the moon or a villain with one golden shoe, it would be a sequel. I know why the rebooted it - the threat of how well made and how profitable the Bourne movies were. I don't necessarily compare them to this film as this is pure fantasy espionage, while Bourne was more grounded in reality.

Final note: I'll say it again: this is my favorite Bond movie. And I thought Craig did an excellent job. I didn't grow up on Connery, Moore or even Lazenby. In fact, my first Bond was 'License to Kill' with Dalton, which I really liked at the time. It's hard for me to watch the other Bond movies now, because of two reasons: #1 They're so incredibly dated and #2 I saw all three 'Austin Powers' pictures before I saw my first Connery Bond movie. So, I couldn't help but laugh when I finally saw what Dr. Evil represented. My partner at the time was none too pleased with my laughing at the so-called serious Dr. Evil, er, Donald Pleasence's Blofeld.
6/10
It is not the best
indianajoies24 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie for me it is not the best of James Bond movies.

The best in this movie are the special effects and the action.

Another thing that I don't like very much is the new actor who plays James Bond, I would prefer another kind or type of actor for example Erol Sanders I think he could be an interesting James Bond, or perhaps others actors. I think Daniel Craig is a great actor but for to play James Bond don't. I think it is difficult task to choose an actor for to play James Bond. I like Eva Green performance I think she is one of the best Bond's girls, and Judi Dench I always like her performance aka "M".

I hope the next Bond movie will be better than this.
Daniel Craig makes a good 007
StanleyStrangelove27 November 2006
Daniel Craig makes a good 007, not up to Sean Connery but better than Brosnan, Dalton and Moore. This Bond film returns to the grittiness of the first Connery Bond films and shuns the silly puns and over the top gimmicks that turned the series into a comic strip. The problem with this film is its structure. It starts with a bang then comes to a dead stop with an excruciatingly long card game. It never recovers its pace although it does end with a good closing sequence in Venice. The much touted Eva Green is okay but not the great Bond girl that she's been cracked up to be. At 2 hours and almost 30 minutes the film is too long and the slow middle sequence just kills it. Hopefully the next installment will keep all the good features of this film and add a better plot and better pacing. It's no wonder this book was not filmed originally because it's a very weak novel. In my opinion, the best two Bond films were From Russia With Love and Goldfinger, which is one of the great films in any genre. But even though no one could ever live up to the Connery films, this new approach with Craig holds great promise.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Thank you Daniel Craig!! It has been a decade and this movie like a fine wine has aged well. It is official. Daniel Craig is Bond.
fspappa3 December 2016
I was blown away when I saw this movie. I was still trying to get over Die Another Day. After seeing the far out and ridiculous situations from that movie and horrible writing, it was great to see Bond brought back down to Earth and seeing him starting his career instead of having an established one. The opening sequence reminded me of Dr.No with Sean Connery in his motel room and shooting the professor with 1 shot. Daniel kept his cool and he knew what he was doing. I loved it when he did his own stunts especially the foot chase and the scene at the airport. Those I couldn't see Roger Moore do. Daniel Craig brought back Bond the way he was meant to be. Sean Connery may have been the first but sorry Sean, you've been dethroned. Daniel has more range of an actor. I saw it when he lost Vesper.That was fantastic! You can see him show more dimensions that make him a real person. Even the torture scene shows that we weren't in the Pierce Brosnan era anymore. The villain was cool. He was a corrupt banker and not a super villain but his motives were great. Vesper reminded me a bit of Stacey from On Her Majesties' Secret Service. She was a great equal to Bond and committing suicide was what she had to do. Overall, this was a great start to the Danial Craig era. Sorry Sean but you have been dethroned. He is a Bond for my time. I'm glad to have seen it.
9/10
Best bond ever !!
ninadp19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why you should "Casino Royale" ? * Positive points : 1) Bond in the making (first assignment after getting a license-to-kill ! 2) A romantic, passionate bond than a womanizer making whoopee 3) More humane bond than a macho, artificial creased spy 4) Excellent repartee between bond and bond girl 5) Thrilling chase sequences 6) Excellent,suave casino game (poker) 7) Demure sex and violence 8) Less focus on gadgetry and cars and more on a realistic spy 9)Intelligent and witty bond girl unlike a mere bimbo eye candy * Negative points : 1) interminable game of poker resulting into a mild boredom 2) length of the movie (144 minutes)
5/10
A reboot if ever there was one
studioAT5 August 2017
After things started to get a bit silly towards the end of Pierce Brosnan's time as 007 (the invisible car anyone?) this reboot/prequel tries to address the balance, and bring Bond into the 21st century with Daniel Craig putting on the famous tuxedo.

I thought this film was gritty, and darker than past films, but Craig undoubtedly is good in the role, and Eva Green is a suitably beautiful Bond girl.

It's not my favourite Bond film but it certainly is a game changing film in the series.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A dry martini, shaken not stirred
krittikag26 December 2021
Gritty set pieces, smirk filled exchanges and beautifully visualized shots.

Casino Royale, the James Bond reboot played all its cards right - from being an edgier spy drama than its predecessors to taking the action a notch more realistic.

Here, James is not just a womanizing killing machine, but instead shows emotional dimensions. Albeit, being paraded around in beachwear a significant number of times. (We ain't complaining!).

With menacing enemies of state at every turn, friends doubling up as snakes and a solid M to fall back upon. The reboot packs quite a punch to keep viewers hooked for the entire 2.5 hrs.

All in all, a good (re)start to the otherwise watered down Pierce Brossnan series we were subjected to.

Omega. Check. Aston Martin. Check. Dry Martini. Check.
2/10
This POS was only slightly less of a waste of time than QOS
docrog-224 February 2020
I watched both Casino Royale & Skyfall today. Starting with the endless opening chase scene, Casino Royale was basically pure drivel, badly scripted & acted when compared with the much more tightly directed Skyfall (kudos to Sam Mendes). While QOS was the certainly the weakest of the 3 early Craig/Bond movies, Casino Royale was not far behind as a waste of my time. Growing up with Connery's earliest Bond and seeing every one in the Bond series (as well as having read all of Fleming's original books starting in my adolescence), it pains me to see how far these movie adaptations have strayed from the original form & content. They now are basically Mission Impossible wannabees stamped with Bond's name. Skyfall, at least, was a bit of a throwback and a better time at the movies.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Remarkable , Terrific , Heartbreaking
keraghel_mehdi26 October 2021
This Movie really Brings a much Dynamic & Emotional Bond Character and take us into his first job as 007 Where The Character has a space to explore more of himself when he encounters this challenge -Let's talk first about the Characters , I think the two obvious Ones besides the Main Character were Le Chiffre and Vesper , Two characters that thanks to the Actors performances manage to deliver a compelling Range of emotions , character Layers and mainly exposing their vulnerability , which served to strengthen and enhance their Characters effectiveness

Story & Plot : The First Act of the Movie was well-paced and Packed with terrific Action Sequences , it introduced the characters and exposed the main Plot and set the the events going properly and that leads us to the 2nd Act and the complexity about it when we get to this very complexe & convoluted plot With its many Vague elements that were set together in such unclarity that makes it hard to assume how exactly the events are heading toward

Finally , we reach the Third Act where I find it a little Complexe in an exaggerate way and Confusing when it comes to the display and The pacing as well , and I find that the final revelation Of the Plot Elements came too Late Although there were few forshadowings here and there but For me The conclusion didn't pay off well enough , but that doesn't undermine the Success that movie made on the side of The Characters and the Emotional Effect that pays off the culmination of their Arcs

Movie Rating : 8/10.
6/10
what does it take for a good Bond movie?
dromasca14 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Indeed, what does it take to make a good Bond movie? If we are to judge according to the first 20 films in the series we need an actor who can identify himself as a sex-symbol with enough sense of humor to compensate the savage killing he is exercising in each film, we need at least three cars or other vehicles races ending in spectacular explosions, we need exotic locations, we need at least two Bond babes usually a good one and a bad one, and a spectacular evil character which usually will offer the better chances for an interesting role. And of course we have M. with his/her authority and Q. with his gadgets, and miss Moneypenny eternally in love with Bond.

Here is series 21. As the Bond books were exhausted we are back at book one and director Martin Campbell is taking us into some unknown territory. Not only that M. is a Dame Dench (this is not new I guess) and Q. has a new face, and miss Moneypenny is absent, but here is a blonde Slavic type of Bond played by Daniel Craig (quite a good performance) who makes the mistake of becoming really emotionally involved. A married Bond in the next series? Not really, but worth watching this.

Does the more human Bond make sense? Does the renewed Bond series make sense in a world with no global cold war, but with a lot of small hot local wars and terrorist after each corner? The jury is still out there. Until then it is worth seeing this latest Bond movie - it is quite well made, I did not get bored despite the long screen time, although I found the final too much out of tune with the rest and with the Bond style. I will still watch for what will come next, maybe there is indeed a Bond for each generation.
8/10
A Bond film grounded in realism with just enough playfulness
cricketbat23 September 2020
I may have been a little too harsh on Casino Royale when it first came out. Watching it over a decade later, this movie holds up better than many previous James Bond installments. The story is solid, the action is thrilling, and even though it's grounded in realism, it has just enough playfulness to feel like a Bond film. Daniel Craig may not be my favorite 007, but the movie surrounding him is very well done.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
One of the worst Bond films I have seen!
inmatom19 November 2006
I thought the new bond film was one of the worst ones so far. It is apparent that they are trying real hard to appeal to the younger crowd with more blood and violence, as well as a more buff Bond actor. The time sequencing is still a bit unclear to me; I have not seen the original 1967 version, so I don't know how closely or not it follows the original movie. After the beginning flashback scenes to Prague when Bond kills his first two men, we then are reunited with M in the "present" time, which I thought would have been in the early 60s since Bond had just become a 007 agent. However, the storyline goes right to the present time.

Regardless of my misunderstanding the sequencing of the film, I really didn't care for the movie because it did not have any of the cool gadgets that all Bond films have. Other than a defibrillator in the glove compartment, there was nothing. The new Bond actor looks more slavic than British and his accent is hardly noticeable.

The chase scene in Madagascar with the African man who possessed spiderman-like leaping abilities was hilarious, I must admit. Other than that, the chase scenes were run of the mill, and could never compare to the scenes from any of the great Bond films made during the 60s and my two personal favorites from the 70s: Live and Let Die, and Diamonds are Forever.
3/10
Not the James Bond we know & love
TheOvereducated23 February 2020
With "No Time To Die" just around the corner I wanted to rewatch this one to get in the mood, since I didn't remember it much.

Well, as a spy film it's mediocre. As a James Bond film it's bad. There are a few major over-simplifications so that the story can move forward. And then, there's James Bond... there's almost nothing there resembling the awesome character we know & love and whom we've seen played greatly by Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. It's really sad.

I can see that the movie takes place at the beginning of Bond's career as Agent 007, as he just earned his license to kill. That is a good premise. I can also see, that they chose to show a less experienced and more vulnerable James Bond (related to espionage AND LOVE)... but, why do that to that extend?! Personally, I would love to keep seeing the awesome, strong character of James Bond I've been used to. It never gets old! Even by sticking with the less experience, I'm sure they could have shown it better, way better, honoring the character by showing him strong, focused and determined nevertheless. All that naivety and vulnerability regarding love... c'mon! Who wants to see that in the James Bond character? Even so, I really doubt, that an agent chosen to become Agent 007 would have that.

P.S. and that torture scene... seriously? Why?!
9/10
An Awesome 21st Bond Film
sushiichiro21 November 2006
From the start, Casino Royale puts itself in a league of its own.

The movie's opening scene, arguably the best of any Bond film's, makes it quite clear that Bond-rookie Daniel Craig is not Pierce Brosnan.

Like On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969), in which newcomer George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery as 007, Casino Royale marks with a new actor to play the charming and charismatic spy the beginning of a new era of Bond films.

First-time viewers of Bond will undoubtedly enjoy the secret agent's 21st exciting escapade, while aficionados of the series have plenty to look forward to.

Although some Bond fans may have been initially disappointed in the film for its lack of the customary gun-barrel sequence that opened the first seconds of the previous 20 movies, most were pleasantly surprised when the sequence appeared later as a lead-in to the main titles.

Unlike any Bond film since The Living Daylights (1987), Casino Royale sticks mostly to the plot of an Ian Fleming book. As a result, James Bond is back to his roots in Casino Royale as the determined, bare-knuckled, cold-hearted killer Fleming had, in his 1953 novel of the same title, intended his secret agent character to be.

While several elements from the book were changed in order to better fit the current time period (cell-phones and high-stakes Texas Hold'Em replaced Fleming's Cold War trappings and Chemin de Fer), the focus of the film was much more on its richly nuanced characters than on high-tech gizmos and gadgets.

In fact, everything in the film is more realistic. The exotic locales, fast cars, and stunning Bond girls—as well as several other hallmarks of the series, such as the famous phrase "Bond…James Bond"—are all still included, only without the campy, cartoon-like tone that characterized the earlier films.

Hand-to-hand combat is much more frequent and James Bond appears to be more human than superhero.

The action sequences are much more convincing and rather than the cheap puns evident in past films, Casino Royale's one-liners are actually clever and legitimate jokes.

The surrounding cast has been tweaked as well. Instead of a megalomaniac out to rule the world, the villain Le Chiffre (French for "the Cipher"), played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, is a banker to international terrorists whose only interest is money.

The heroine, Vesper Lynd, played by beautiful French actress Eva Green, serves as Bond's female equivalent—suave, shrewd, skeptical and sex-savvy. Rather than worn-out double entendres of sexual innuendo, their multilevel exchanges are convincingly sharp.

Jeffrey Wright does an excellent job as Bond's CIA ally Felix Leiter, while Italian actors Giancarlo Giannini and Caterina Murino also deliver laudable performances.

And, as always, Dame Judi Dench is perfect for the role of 'M,' Bond's boss and head of Britain's secret service, MI6.

Casino Royale's outstanding cinematography and direction juxtapose its highly memorable storyline. The action sequences are brilliantly shot and edited, appropriately placing emphasis on real-life stunts in preference to special effects, and the plot is simply more engaging than that of most Bond films.

Additionally, the title theme song "You Know My Name," sung by Chris Cornell, former front-man of Seattle rock-band Soundgarden, is an excellent piece of music and perfectly characterizes the plot and tone of the movie.

Director Martin Campbell, who also made the 17th Bond film, GoldenEye (1995), should certainly be praised for his remarkable work and despite a few slow but completely necessary parts, Casino Royale could not have been much better as the latest volume of what seems to be the never-ending series of Bond films.
9/10
back to basics
ewjbarten13 November 2006
Bond has returned and is really back to basics. The new Casino Royale (as opposed to the 1967 parody that even featured Woody Allen as Bond!) is more true to the essence of Ian Fleming's novels than ever before. It tells the 'Bond Begins' tale of how the young 007 blows his cool over the exquisite Vesper only to get it back at his own expense and be truly licensed to kill for evermore. The opening of the film is riveting and contains non-stop nail-biting action, the ending is truly moving and deeply emotional. Casino Royale is not for the faint-hearted but definitely maybe the best Bond ever. With Daniel Craig as a very tough and masculine show-all that will this time around probably also attract gay audiences the series is now really ready for the new millennium.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond has returned... heck, this is what Ian Fleming wrote him to be!
rlnutt18 November 2006
OK... I've been a Bond fan all of my life and I've watched every movie so many times I can't even remember and I've long since given up hope that any of the movies will come close to the characterization of what Ian Fleming wrote... until now!

I'll leave the particulars of the story to others, I'll just tell you that someone in Bondville woke up and decided to write a story that Ian Fleming would be proud to own! Bond is the way he is in all of the books! No smirkiness, no glib comebacks, no pithy remarks... no trace of the silliness that marked the Roger Moore years; he was an accurate interpretation of the books that Fleming wrote!

Daniel Craig plays him as such and he doesn't miss the mark at all! If you are a true Bond fan, not just a fan of the movies but a fan of the books, then you'll enjoy this film! He's a bit undisciplined and crass and you wonder how many more mistakes he's going to make before he gets the bad guy!

I liked this movie very much, but I'm giving it a 9 because of the running time. They could have shaved off 20 minutes and would have still had a great movie! That's its only fault in my opinion... too much movie! I can't wait to see the next installment to see how Craig's Bond will further morph into the suave, debonair spy we've all come to know and love!
7/10
Bond is back, with a Veangance.
IRateFilms16 November 2006
Casino Royale begins in Black and white, foreshadowing the more dark and violent tone that follows Daniel Craig around the world for two and a half hours. Director David Campbell has breathed life back into what some feared as a dead franchise. Brushing all worries aside, Craig was almost perfect for this new and updated version of James Bond. Although Craig is not as handsome or sleek in his demeanor as the previous Bonds, his grittier attitude does match his looks. It seems MGM put all the pieces of the new Bond puzzle together quite well, but missed one of the most important pieces, the Bond girl. The new Bond girl, played by the anorexic looking and consistently dull import Eva Green, does bring the film down as a whole.

The action in Casino Royale is stellar, snatching all of Bonds usual attention away from his futuristic gadgets and luxurious cars, and centering on pure adrenaline pumping action. Casino Royale may also have one of the best opening credit montages to grace a Bond film, coupled with the catchy theme song brought to us by Chris Cornell. Casino Royale was filmed across the world, picking beautiful locales to compliment the exquisite camera work, bringing us closer to a classier James Bond film.

Another interesting point that should be brought up is the lack of one main villain in this supposed prequel to the life of this promiscuous secret agent. The villain in this is more the greed that can persuade seemingly anyone into the life of corruption. This installment of the franchise does zero in more on Bond's abatement from arrogance, and his struggle with becoming a more efficient agent. Casino Royale is a definite see for the Bond fan, and any newcomer alike.
10/10
The movie that rebooted James Bond for a millennial generation
justin-fencsak4 August 2019
When Casino Royale first came out during the same weekend that another hit film, Happy Feet, came out nearly 13 years ago, it changed the way James Bond looked and feel. Here was a darker, more mature Bond updated for the post 9/11 world and product placements galore from Sony. It's also one of the longest bond movies ever and my second favorite, alongside Skyfall, which remains my all time favorite Bond movie. Eva Green plays his sexy girlfriend and Judi Dench plays M. Not to be confused with the Climax episode of the same novel as well as the 1967 James Bond spoof, this film became a huge hit and spawned several sequels, the last of which was Spectre. Another movie, starring a black woman as James Bond, is scheduled for release next year.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good job Craig!
philchan-320-19682722 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not exactly a Bond fan in the truest sense, but I know the franchise well, and I have seen all the films, many of them woefully more than once thanks to TV.

I'm guilty of the worst of all foibles of Bond fans: I grew up with Sean Connery's Bond, and believed no one could replace him. That is until he replaced himself in Never Say Never Again. Lazenby appeared, for lack of a better word, "uncomfortable." Moore was dramatically two dimensional at best. Dalton had moments in Living Daylights. Brosnan alternately refreshing and annoying. I did not hold much hope for Daniel Craig. I was wrong. While brilliantly cold and merciless, as one has come to expect from the Bond mythology as it has been lifted from Fleming's pages and transposed to the screen, Craig's Bond demonstrates a believable sincerity and vulnerability. Frankly, I was taken completely by surprise. His reading may not be true to all of Fleming's character, but his is more appealing than any Bond I've seen. Period. To the "Craignotbond" clique, I must say I couldn't disagree with you more. As I left the theatre, I was unable to suppress a shiver as I admitted to my companion that the franchise had definitely scored with this Bond. Barbara Broccoli is right. Craig is Bond.
7/10
Go Bond Go!!
sunznc24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Glossy, shiny, Bond movie with characters and settings that look like they came right out of a fashion magazine. With over-the-top, carefully choreographed action scenes that are almost non-stop. Anything deep? Mmmmmm, no. Fun for 2 hours? Yes. The only scenes that are low key are during great card games where atrocious amounts of money are laid down. Bond is able to put his body through intense action with injury and recover almost immediately. One torture scene will make every man on the planet cringe. Although this is the only injury Bond receives that requires any convalescence! The locale, sets, costumes are very exotic but the person I went with found the Bond car a bit of a disappointment.
8/10
The name is bond James bond
nikhil-3117916 December 2020
Good start lot more to watch Facinated by this character from childhood Finally meets you it was nice meeting you
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Would you drink with this James Bond?
diac2287 July 2008
There are two kinds of Bond, James Bond. There is the sophisticated James Bond, the kind you would love to have a drink with (shaken, not stirred), and discuss politics, life, and religion (by religion, politics and life, I mean women). Then there is the other James Bond, the cynical, cold, merciless, gadget-free, ruthless, and all-around intimidating man that can kill you with his looks (actually kill you folks, no metaphor here). The more sophisticated Bond has been seen in more movies, as the likes of Roger Moore, Sean Connery, and Pierce Brosnan portray the classic character well. The other kind of Bond, the deadly one, hasn't been seen as much. Timothy Dalton proves that he could make a great villain as well as a James Bond, but this version of the spy has closer ties to the book. For whatever reason though, sophistication and suave is preferred on the big screen.

But after a temporary revival with Goldeneye, the franchise yet again dips towards silliness, so a third revival is needed (might be fourth, but who is counting?). What we have here now is Martin Campbell yet again trying to boost the franchise, and a new Bond. His name is Daniel Craig, whose film experience includes a lot of low-budget independent flicks made overseas. Daniel Craig has the body of a spy, but lacks the sophisticated look. Which can only mean he is going to be the- Bond. Angry-I'm-Going-To-Destroy-You –With-A-Paper-Towel James Bond. Craig plays this role perfectly, and even exposes Bond to weaknesses, a rarity in the series. However, this new Bond will not be everyone's cup of tea. Even the opening credits aren't Bond-like, as there is a surreal lack of women. Craig doesn't use gadgets; he goes through places with his feet and his fist, and whatever item is nearby. He is brutal, heartless, and becomes vulnerable in only one instance. Unlike the previous Bond, he doesn't have much patience, he doesn't talk much, and he just doesn't try to woo anybody. This is action-packed Bond, and Casino Royale has plenty of action.

Casino Royale is chronologically the first time we encounter Bond, as we see him mold from cruel, impulsive, dangerous spy to a calmer, more calculated killer and defender of justice. Martin Campbell yet again does a good job in crafting a good action movie with plenty of lighthearted and romantic moments that ease the rising tensions that spring throughout the movie. We can also thank Campbell for introducing American audiences to Free-Running, which is a new trend that started overseas that can pave the way for on-foot chases to come. We can also thank the writing staff for bring Bond back to earth with realistic stunts and fights and locations (Paul Haggis, who has penned quite a lot of acclaimed work lent his skills here).

The only problem is the action might be a bit too much for a Bond film. The James Bond enjoys success because it deters a bit from the mindless grunge of action flicks by providing dosages of beautiful women, unique villains, and fun character interactions. This one feels more grunge than Bond, and that may alienate some, while it will also bring in new fans. Also, Craig and the lead Bond lady (in this case played by the beautiful Eva Green) just pales in comparison to the chemistry in another Campbell movie: The Mask of Zorro (Why Catherine Zeta-Jones and Antonio Banderas are not together in real life is beyond me).

Bottom Line: Casino Royale is a good Bond flick as long as you don't mind a revival of Timothy Dalton's version of James Bond. However, if you like Pierce and Sean, then you might be in for a nasty surprise as we see a vulnerable, and a not-as-likable James Bond running around creating havoc and frustration for the enemies. One necessity to a good movie is a likable main character, no matter what he or she does. This James Bond is well-portrayed, but not as decently fleshed-out as the action set pieces in this movie (best example is the insane chase/shootout in Madagascar). Craig was well-received, so be ready for the franchise gearing in a new direction, whether you like it or not. Be ready for a more violent, less gadgety Bond. For those of you that don't like this new Bond, there's always the new version of Get Smart. Why are you laughing?
7/10
Intriguing in places and better than any other recent Bond film, but still predictable in places and overrated to boot
DaRick8919 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had originally wanted to see Casino Royale at the cinema, when it first came out. However, the screening was delayed, so my friend and I had to see another movie instead. 5 months later, I finally saw Casino Royale. I dropped what I was doing and went to see it in high hopes. I have heard repeatedly that it is one of the best Bond films ever. It is better than any Bond film made since 1995, but I still found it to be overrated. Sure, it was intriguing in places and had its fair share of action. However, it also dragged in the middle like other recent Bond films and had some predictable plot twists which seem to have been borrowed from The World Is Not Enough (like the traitorous female ally). The ending, while admirable in that it wasn't a clichéd 'happy ending', seemed anti-climatic. The acting was, on the whole, pretty good, improving on past Bond films.

I may as well start by detailing the plot. We start off with a scene where Bond suddenly shoots a man. For some strange reason, the scene made me laugh. We quickly cross to some African country, where Bond gets himself in a bit of bother for blowing up an embassy and killing an unarmed hostage. This is where most of the action ends. Up to this point, I thought that Casino Royale could've gone anywhere. It had such potential.

However, in the middle, it really dragged and mostly revolved around several card showdowns between Bond and Le Chiffre, a businessman with some dubious ties. I suppose many people found this to be intriguing. I did too, initially, because it is such a novel feature in a Bond film, but the whole premise outstayed its welcome, so to speak.

Already, I can see a correlation between Casino Royale and past Bond films, despite Casino Royale's relative superiority. For instance, we have an exciting beginning, a relatively dull middle and a quick-fire ending, just to keep the audience happy. If you notice, this plot structure has been closely adhered to by every Bond film since Goldeneye in 1995. The film, however, which interpreted this plot structure most literally, would have to be The World Is Not Enough. The beginning of that movie was spectacular, yet the middle dragged for long periods, before picking up towards the end. I'm not saying that following this structure is necessarily bad. I just think it's a shame that Casino Royale would borrow elements from inferior films.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. Despite the fact that the middle is bloated, it is still less boring than those of the aforementioned films, as it does have a few deliciously scattered moments of real action (like when Bond strangles that black guy to death).

However, this is ruined somewhat by the predictable plot twists which arise as the film nears the end. For instance, we learn that Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini) is a traitor. I could also sense that Bond's sidekick, Vesper (Eva Green), was out to betray him ten minutes before the event actually occurred. Like the plot structure, these twists also seem to be derivative of other recent (and inferior) Bond films, making their exclusion in this movie seem unnecessary.

I'm also leaning towards the conclusion that the ending wasn't that great. Casino Royale does its utmost to disassociate itself from the other, more inferior Bond films of late by having the film end abruptly with Bond standing over his ultimate nemesis after losing his female sidekick. This is a definite diversion from the clichéd Bond ending, which as far as I can recall involves Bond and his female sidekick revelling in their victory over an adversary. This may be seen as a positive. Despite this, however, the ending, as aforementioned above, seemed to be anti-climatic and left me feeling utterly bewildered, uncertain of what to think.

The aspect of Casino Royale that definitely lifts this film above any other Bond film would be the acting. The acting in the more recent Bond films has been anywhere from good to decidedly substandard. In Casino Royale, every actor of note delivers turns, which are, at the very least, acceptable. With this in mind, I have to say that Judi Dench does play M a little too much like a stereotypical boss. However, she is not particularly irritating, so I'll let that pass. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, reinvents Bond completely and does it successfully. I find it amusing that he was initially christened 'James Bland' by the British tabloids. Admittedly, there are moments when he comes across as a little too colourless (for instance, the beginning), but these are few. For the most part, he is so cold and calculating as to be almost frightening, as opposed to the suave Bronson-type Bond. Mads Mikkelsen turns in a competent performance as Le Chiffre, with his stereotypical 'ice king' villain approach being somewhat effective most of the time. Giannini and Green are also respectable.

In the end, Casino Royale is the best Bond film in recent memory. However, it is not as good as the majority make it out to be. It is indeed, quite interesting and the acting is quite good, but its adherence to the bloated and uneven 'Bond plot structure', along with some predictable plot twists, detract from its appeal and leads to Casino Royale being somewhat overrated. Nevertheless, it is still an above-average film, so I award it:

3.5/5 stars

EDIT (10/6/09): Actually, the ending makes a lot more sense once you watch Quantum of Solace. So consider this movie to be close to a 4-star rating (even though it still isn't quite there, IMO). My opinion of The World is Not Enough has also been heightened.

EDIT (21/11/18): Some minor edits to better reflect my current opinion of prior Bond films.
10/10
A game of two halves
neil-4766 December 2007
When a film has a lot of comments, I often look at the negatives first.

The negatives here mostly express disappointment that Casino Royale is not yet another version of the Bond film which became increasingly standardised from You Only Live Twice onwards. Yes, they were fun, but by heavens, they were stale. Die Another Day was a dose of fresh air to start with before it reverted to the formula in the second half.

But Casino Royale was a real fresh start. It had the feel of the early Bonds - espionage thrillers - but with a modern take. Bond became a more rounded person than the bit of cardboard he has been in most of the movies. The cheesy one-liners were, for the most part, thankfully consigned to the rubbish bin. The performances were uniformly excellent (and by heavens, Judi Dench delivers, doesn't she, in those cameos?). The ties to the earlier films in the series were few, but exquisitely judged - they send a shiver up your spine when they came. And Daniel Craig - about whom I had as many doubts as everyone else - was very very good indeed.

Roll on Bond 22!
10/10
Casino Royale puts on screen the story based on Ian Flemming's first novel in the secret agent series.
jcvargas8523 November 2006
Finally, a film that pays true respect to Mr. Ian Flemming's vision and is based on his first ever novel in the series, Casino Royale. The whole acting ensemble is remarkable and the cinematography is breath-taking. With all respect, I believe this is a far better film than director Martin Cambell's first attempt at bringing back 007. Daniel Craig is the most convincing Bond since Connery and the most lethal since Dalton. Of course I can't forget about the sensational score that assists in making this film the definitive Bond film in my opinion. Casino Royale brings back the gritty, realistic Bond that Ian Flemming originally imagined. This Bond is certainly Fleming's Bond!
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Casino Royale is Simply Awesome
rcbbo10 December 2006
Well, it took them 20 times, but Hollywood has finally created a Bond that will blow you away.

This is James Bond before he holds his license to kill, but Bond is just as gutsy and dangerous. James is elevated to "00" status and his first mission takes him to Uganda where he is to bring in a terrorist, Mollaka, for questioning. Of course, it doesn't work quite that easily and the first 15 minutes of the movie is an action packed, chase that, of course, ends in an explosion.

Bond decides to investigate, independently of MI6, in order to track down the rest of the terrorist cell. He follows a lead to the Bahamas where he encounters Dimitrios who he finds out is involved with Le Chiffre who is the banker to the world's terrorist organization. Bond is able to take care of Dimitrios and stop even more terrorist activity (Which once more ends in an explosion) which then leads him to his next assignment by MI6 to go to Montenegro at Le Casino Royale where Le Chiffre is setting up a high stakes poker game.

M sends accountant Vesper Lynd along to keep an eye on the finances and to unofficially keep an eye on Bond, who is still not completely trustworthy in the eyes of M.

The action in this movie is superb, but if you look deeper than that, you'll find something more meaningful to this movie. This is more a subtle emotional investigation into the character of James Bond than it is anything else.

Some scenes that may at first seem meaningless (EXP: The scene in the shower with Vesper) really are more showing that Bond does indeed have a soul. He can love, he can care, and he can hurt, he just chooses not to. He needs to be broken down in order for that to happen, but in a profession like his, he can't afford to.

Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond. Eva Green was a good Bond girl, and they do have amazing chemistry throughout the entire film.

Is it worth the price of admission? Absolutely! It is 2 and a half hours, but it moves by fairly quickly. Tons of action, great acting and a deeper look at the character of James Bond.

Best movie of the year.
8/10
But what about...?
morpheusatloppers15 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I haven't read ALL of the two THOUSAND-odd comments on this film (has ANYONE?!) but in those I HAVE read, NO-ONE seems to have spotted the GLARING PLOT-HOLES contained in the piece.

Like - if this is a "new" Bond, how come Judi Dench is still "M"? I have no quarrel with Ms Dench, who I'm sure has done her best to cope with the fact that her character keeps TOTALLY changing in each new Bond she has done - but she was "M" during Pierce's run.

And WHY did Bond have a resuscitation unit in his car in the first place?

And what did Bond's Aston HIT to make it barrel-roll? There was NOTHING visible on or near the road where a simple turn of the wheel started its sky-road-sky-road...(etc.) voyage. Even a Smart Car isn't THAT easy to flip, and a high-performance car...FORGET it. Okay, I know they used a cannon (which incidentally the SFX people did LITTLE to hide - it's quite visible in the film) but in the REAL World...

And... urrrgh!

The thing is, it's not hard to see why the Bond producers decided to "re-invent" Bond. It seems to be the fashion these days: Batman, Star Wars - even The Dukes Of Hazzard. But how can you do a "prequel" of Bond when EVERYBODY has watched the twenty-odd saga - at least (for younger viewers) on TV - for the last FORTY-something YEARS?

So I HATE this movie - RIGHT? Actually no. It was a BONZER film. The "free-running/jumping" scene near the start is FANTASTIC. Craig was BORN for the part. The "car-park attendant" scene is hilarious. "Would you like that shaken or stirred?" "Do I look as if I care?" Priceless. And the last line - "Bond...James Bond" got a CHEER in the cinema where I saw it. Bond was BACK, it said.

No, this was a CLASSIC movie and I hope "Quantum Of Solace" keeps up the pace. I just found the producers' adherence to the fashion of prequels IRRITATING and the above-mentioned plot-holes SILLY.

It's too late to change things now, but maybe Solace will be more careful...
10/10
I can't believe I'm saying this.
augustindennis28 February 2019
As a person growing up with endless rewatches of Connery and Moore movies, I can't really believe I'm saying this: this movie has become my favorite bond movie watching it the 4th time now.

It's gritty, dark and flat out cool. Craig is playing it well and Eva Green is a GREAT Bond girl. The casino flair is very nice as well.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A Bond film for film critics and non-Bond fans
paws1718 November 2006
Why is this film attracting so many plaudits from critics and reviewers? Perhaps it's because of its very low key opening sequence, its confused plot, its overlong run-time, its sudden & unsatisfactory resolution of the storyline, the unaccountable emotional involvement from the main man and the badly timed and token "jokes" which fall flat.

This film takes the Bond legacy loved by millions and trashes it completely in a mistaken quest to appear cool, politically correct and topical (e.g. references to 9/11 and acres of runtime given over to poker playing).

Whatever you think of this film, This ISN'T Bond.

Come back Roger Moore, all is forgiven.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Top class Bondery
johngammon5624 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw Dr No at the cinema when it first appeared and have been watching Bond films ever since. For me the best ones are those which take the 007 character and therefore the viewer seriously, and for that reason I've found the Roger Moore films and even some of the Brosnan ones unwatchable.

This film is a real return to the basics of Bond. The producers have tried to get to grips with the character as though they were making a real movie, not another lucrative addition to a fantasy franchise. Look, James Bond is a cold killer who knows he himself could well die at any minute, and he wants the best of everything and won't take second best - food, cars, clothes, hotels, girls. Sean Connery, Timothy Dalton, even George Lazenby nailed this - and now Daniel Craig shows us how a man such as that is created.

I think many of the film's detractors are expecting the elements that the rest of us have seen so often they've become clichés - the villain's lair (always totally destroyed), the Bond girls, the expensive clothes, the improbable gadgets - and have not appreciated this laudable attempt to put new twists on old, tired material. Principally what these people are missing is the best Bond since Connery (in an extraordinary, human performance from Daniel Craig) and the best Bond film since the days of Connery. I thought such elements as the opening sequence, title sequence, use of the theme tune etc were intelligent and well judged. I particularly liked how Bond's relationship with Vesper Lynd was allowed to carry on after the principal bad guy was vanquished. (I've often wondered whatever happens to the Bond women after the end credits roll...)

My only criticisms are minor ones, including -

* a long, daft chase sequence involving freerunning (why didn't Bond just wait for the guy to come down off the crane?)

* some improbable situations (what's 007 doing with a defibrillator? - though they could have got round that if Le Chiffre's heart was bad and M didn't want him to die at the tables)

* and some missed opportunities (Felix Leiter gives the impression the US has money to burn - no, he'd have asked for interest on the loan or a cut of the take, and that would have placed more pressure on Bond to deliver)

* I couldn't really believe that Bond would have put in his resignation. More likely, he'd have kept it in draft form, never quite getting round to sending it. (Vesper: "Have you told M yet?" Bond: "I'm still working on the email. I want it to be just right.")

But, forgetting it's Bond, it's a very good film. This I suppose is the mistake the producers have made in the past - how many of the Bond films stand on their own as good movies?
9/10
Old Dog, New Tricks.
Cinema_Fan29 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is back. This reinvention of Ian Fleming's first Bond story is captivating and exhilarating as it is magnificent. With the lack of gadgets and witty innuendoes, Casino Royale is back to basics thuggery and tough guy masculinity. The action is fast paced as it is well thought out, with tremendous stunts and action sequences that hypnotise and excite.

With lavish locations, as to be expected, such as Venice, already used in From Russia With Love (1963) and Moonraker (1979), the Bahamas, Prague and nooks and crannies in-between. This is a stupendous crossover from a classic 1952 story to a modern upbringing, while respecting the old, intermingling of the two is done effortlessly and timelessly, the last Bond movie to use the Ian Fleming moniker was The Living Daylights (1987) some nineteen years hence.

Daniel Craig is well suited to this new era of Bond, his no nonsense stance is calibrated to be exactly what the Bond franchise needed. This franchise was slowly eroding into parody, it was the dog that was chasing its own tail, the only way to come into the new millennium and beyond was to reinvent, to revitalise, and with having the luck of the first Fleming story, finally, this introduction has become an impressive first taste of what is yet to come.

Admittedly, with the new age of CGI that the past Bond movies seem to need to survive, they have become lifeless and dull. Casino Royale seems to use little CGI and relies on the old fashioned school of stunts and action, a great twist in the tail that has this mad dog of an Englishman needing no substitutes for the real thing, and with great reverence, this has worked wonders for the franchise. Great stuff, great result. Bond is back.
10/10
Brilliant!
HeartMonger25 November 2006
A New Bond. A lighter touch. A more humane side to Bond. And a damn good theme song make this one of the strongest Bond films in the LONGEST time. Filled with action packed sequences from beginning to end, the film defines what a new age Bond film is supposed to mean in this day and age, and in many ways, this defies how most films are made today and what exactly they are. This film has the highest degree of style and class as far as acting, direction, cinematography, editing, music, you name it, it has it.

But one of the stronger elements of this film is the knack it has for human interest. It has a lot of human interest to be explored, from Bond's yearning, learning relationship throughout, to his ripe curiosity for who he really is, and what he must do, and what he feels for those who is exacting revenge. Of course it is designed to be an action "Bond" film, but goes much deeper than the usual Bond fare.

All in a word, every aspect of this film is just simply put - Brilliant. Exactly what a film made today should be. And the effects are all pretty modern. Only used CGI TWICE in this film...something that cannot usually be said about films today. Brilliant.

One more thing: Daniel Craig is the MAN!
9/10
Grabs you by ... you know
jayjaycee3 March 2020
"Casino Royale" is a 2006 action thriller directed by Martin Campbell starring Daniel Craig and Eva Green. It's less than a month till the final installment of The Craig Bond saga hits the cinemas and after watching that trailer and listening to that dope new song by Billie Eilish, I decided to finally give the predecessors a watch. Admittedly, I've never seen any of the Ian Fleming adaptation films, neither the classics nor the modern adaptations, it just never appealed to me so much, but then my brother encouraged me to give them a spin and review them just in time before the conclusion arrives. And boy, this one packs a punch. Within the first minutes the film began to elaborate an excellently well balanced pace that couldn't have been done better. In the first act it's action packed and the chase sequences are so well choreographed that the daredevilry simply amazed me. The thing, it's not the only greatness the film has to offer, because in the second half it shows it's also a masterful thriller in it's core. The titular casino scene is filmed with such a tension that it literally gave me sweaty hands an basically had me on the edge of my seat countless times. And it was just a game of poker, in general! I didn't expect it to be this well written, that's why I was tremendously impressed. Next to this, it's filmed in such an ingenious way and the camera work is superb and at times I even forgot that it's a fourteen years old flick already - it just looks timelessly great even compared to modern action features. Aside from this, the cast is playing convincingly in here. Although I don't have any way of comparison, I think that Daniel Craig did a decent job and is as cool as an ice cube in a Vodka martini (is it served like this? Nevermind, you know what I mean!) and also Eva Green as the femme fatale is simply gorgeous and Mads Mikkelsen as the villain is brilliant as always. They all make their respective characters come to life and so interesting and I cared for all of them throughout. Although the film almost hits the two and a half hour mark in terms of run time, I haven't felt bored once. The atmosphere is always excellently built up and even the dialogue was so brilliantly constructed. For example this one scene in the train. I literally sat there and told my brother that that's one of the best dialogues I've seen recently. So much wit, so much sass and so much tension. What makes this intriguing story even better are the countless twists that caught me off guard all the time. Just when I thought the problem was solved it was like "No - takes this!" and I was shocked at times, in a positive way. It's a nail biting tension throughout the entire run time that followed me until the end. I think the peak of this feeling was the torture scene that - without sounding to vulgar - grabbed me by the balls. I felt every single emotion and every second of pain in this twisted flick. All in all, the first Craig Bond delivered surprisingly great entertainment and manages almost perfectly to balance the film between high pulse action sequences and high pulse thriller scenes and additionally looks so great as well. It's cool and stylish throughout and a magnificent kickoff to this project. It will be pretty hard to excel this outstanding piece of espionage thriller, but I'm still stoked!
2/10
not worthy of Bond as a character
hv_iitd22 December 2006
This is the worst movie in the Bond series ever. at first the plot looks childish but as he director has said that this is this the starting of 007, we can consider it, but than other problems rises up like there are no advanced gadget as they appear in other Bond movies...ironically the director has used the latest Aston Martin Vanquish instead of older version...the mobile phones used are the latest with latest connecting networks... The end of movie is abrupt...actors are not able to impress with there expressions... storyline is weak.. theme song is worst of all Bond movies... and above all the stupid director didn't used the good old Bond Theme Music as the theme music for the movie...

After watching the movie first time i felt that i have wasted my money on any Bond movie....this movie is not worthy of the Bond title---

only children below 10 should be allowed to watch it.....!!!!!!!!!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Blah !
elshikh416 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This and (2001: A Space Odyssey - 1968) have something in common.

So they wanted to rewrite Bond, not only replace an actor instead of another. Unlike some rewriting done with another old hero, and I mean Batman in (Batman Begins) one year earlier, they boldly smashed some of the basics: The lead as an orphan of a poor family grown up to disturbed Oxford boy recruited as hot-blooded reckless and offensive spy / hit-man. He enjoys violence, prefers married women and drinks something else his familiar martini shaken not stirred (too long to memorize). Torturing him was newly cruel; since he was nude, and screaming! We have an evil man who doesn't want to take over the world, an afro-American Felix Leiter, and no Moneypenny, Q, or sci-fi. The climax isn't about beating the evil man in a lair, or stopping a ticking bomb. But who said that every bold deed has to be great?!

First off, how come Bond freshly had the 007 rank and dame M is the one whose in charge? This movie deals with the matters before it as if they never happened. Remember (GoldenEye), when they told the very much 007 that the new M is a woman, now how can I believe that he's the new one?! The only answer is: This is a new agent with the same name (so they give them the James Bond rank, then the 007?!). Anyway, I told myself get over it and live the dream. However, it was almost a nightmare; for whoever loves the good old Bond, or else!

It's 3 movies. The first is about that raw 007, with 2 good action sequences. The second is one of the most boring movies I have ever been tormented by, with endless poker and endless narration by (Giancarlo Giannini) for all what winded up as unintelligible, ok, I fought the urge to cry to get the whole picture! Let alone the DULLEST evil man in Bond's history; he's a pray more than a beast of prey, living threatened more than threatening, and doing nothing but using the asthma spray and weeping in blood?!! After that, there is a third act where nothing to understand either. Sure insisting on dealing with it, especially in the start and the end, as vol. 1 made it kind of amputated movie, with deliberately obscure events. And it takes itself so seriously; at times, I thought I was watching an existential movie from the 1970s!

The first scene is in black and white (To feel that it's a flashback?!). The long chase in the start could fit as a pre-credits hot sequence instead of that cold, short and incomprehensible black and white one. Why to combat the African terrorist; that sounded fabricated to spread some heat in the second act. (Le Chiffre) is one-eyed, and the organization's collector at the end also! While there are no gadgets, Bond runs everything by cell phones (The movie is almost a very long ad about them), which makes a TV show like (Alias) more creative and droll!

There is nothing comic about the dialogue, not even one-liner or one double-entendre. The question isn't about how to stand that in a franchise that had been the greatest reference for the one-liners and the first teacher of the double-entendres?! No, it's about how lousy, at anything, this dialogue was. (Charles Manson)'s diary is more romantic than the scenes of Bond and his love. Whoever wrote these scenes is real sick and got nothing to do with love. I'll never forget lines like "If nothing was left from you except your smile and finger, you'll be more man than any man I have met. / That's because you know what I can do with my finger." WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS THAT?!

Bond, of (Denial Creag), is stiffer and sillier than (Pierce Brosnan) himself. (Creag) reminded me of Magic (1978), an early (Anthony Hopkins) movie, since he identified with a dummy there with the exact wooden face and blue, always gazing, eyes. Yes, he mastered the action scenes, but this is absolutely his worst role and performance up to that moment. The girls, (Caterina Murino) & (Eva Green), are horrible to say the least. At one scene, (Giannini) tells the second, while she's in a flashy dress: "Half of the men is still looking at you." Well, from where I was sitting, I presumed these men were gay! (Eva) is creepily pop-eyed with an unattractive everything. So how about fascinating Bond to the extent of leaving the MI6 for her?!! Needless to say that that love story was forced. Actually in terms of stiff goggle dummies, it was more like (Bride of Chucky)!

The cinematic factors were fine, especially the soundtrack which is certainly better than the movie. And the action; cut it out, and you'll have something to watch.

For times, the action remains absent. At the old Bonds, the funny spirit, the wicked gadgets, and the beautiful landscapes do compensate. Not this time thought. Although change is good, but not to the worse I believe. Because (Casino Royale) is over serious, no funny, and too boring it's sleepy. It isn't about taking off the dream out of Bond to some extent. It's about how uninteresting that realistic Bond was. So, while it has the intention to be something else the Bond nonsense, it ended up as another nonsense, however less enjoyable!

This is not the Bond I love, or Bond I loved. Before watching it, I read everywhere that it is a Masterpiece. Now you should have guessed what's in common between it and (Space Odyssey). Yes, your guess is right!
9/10
Fast Paced Action Movie - Larger Than Life
fredfinklemeyer4 March 2019
03/04/2019 An enjoyable movie that stays in motion. My only complaint is that it's so over the top that similarity to anything real is impossible to imagine turning it into an almost comic book adventure. Bon Appetit
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
James Bond returns in Casino Royale.
Sirus_the_Virus28 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It has everything you'd want in a bond film and unlike Timothy Dalton, Daniel Craig actually tries to play James Bond. He's brilliant as Bond, and is my favorite Bond actor to date. He's less sex-obsessed, and he's got feelings. Casino Royale has a great story and great action sequences like it's sequel. If you're looking for a good Bond flick, you've found the best Bond flick. I loved Live and let Die and Goldeneye and From Russia with Love, but this is the James Bond film for everyone. I think that Daniel Craig's fame went up very much after this film. Before this he was in Layer Cake and the awful Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Look what happened after this film. He was in The Invasion, The Golden Compass, and the Casino Royale sequel, Quantum of Solace. Daniel Craig is probably one of my favorite actors. Before this film came out,everyone thought Daniel Craig would be good as Bond. My my they were wrong. The supporting cast is pretty good also. I don't want Daniel Craig to have two Bond films left. I want him to be in every Bond film . Live long and prosper Daniel Craig.
7/10
Not a bond as you might remember/know him
kosmasp9 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If I look at this movie and think of it as a "simple" spy movie, I'd say it was very good! I'd give it at least 8/10, I even think it could've made me give it 9. But it's not just a simple spy movie. It's Bond. And it pretty much messes with the history of Bond movies ... or as many said: Bond begins!

There's nothing wrong with trying new things. But apart from the shaken/stirred discussion (or better not caring about it, hello?), one of the things that got me off, was the casting of Judi Dench as "M". Why? Not because she's bad in the role, but because you feel cheated, all in sake of political correctness. Or as the makers said, because she was so good in this role. But by casting her, they obliterated everything that happened before (i.e. Sean Connerys Bond and so forth, why messing with that?).

Those might only seem as small insignificant details (especially to new fans), but I didn't feel that way and since this is my review, I'm gonna talk about it! I didn't have a problem with the fact, that they tried to keep it as real as possible (down & dirty), although all this realism talk (Bond can get hurt, see the poison scene) get's thrown out of the window, when Bond single-handedly takes over a whole military base! I mean come on, what's so real about that? (I like the scenes though and it gives Bourne and other new spies a run for their money).

There are many good things here, but I have to point out the biggest downfall of the movie (imho): The main villain! I really like the danish actor (Mads Mikkelsen), but he isn't a real thread here. He doesn't seem to, by even being harassed by others! How can you be afraid, if he can't keep his act together and even has to be rescued by Bond (or the movie would've been over quicker)?! It should've have been a much scarier villain! It didn't have to be a world conquering ego maniac, but a little more evil, wouldn't have hurt. But still after all these negative things, I still think the movie is good enough and maybe after watching the next Bond movie, I'll appreciate this one more!
8/10
The king is dead, long live the king
rodduncan-126 August 2008
Great empires need revolutions every few centuries or they fall into obscurity. Perhaps that is why the Bond franchise has survived so long, periodically jolted out of its torpor by a new lead actor. If the basic formula remains, it is still Bond, isn't it? But can the franchise survive this most recent incarnation? Along with the introduction of a new lead actor, Daniel Craig, the tried and tested formula has been swept away. Where is the super-villain? Where is the world domination plot? Where is the corrupted scientist fashioning a diabolical super-weapon? I searched in vain for nude women in the title sequence, for a super-lair in a dormant volcano or for escapes through ventilation ducts. In short, and most shocking of all, the plot came close to believability.

True, there are nods to the old days, but each time we are reminded that this is going to be different. When asked if he would like his cocktail shaken or stirred, Bond replies: "Do I look as if I give a damn?" Some of the old cosiness has gone and we are left with a brutality that reflects the original Fleming novels. Bond makes mistakes. He feels emotional as well as physical pain. It isn't always easy watching and I was dismayed to see young children in the audience. How did this get a 12A certificate? If I have one gripe it is with the punctuated storyline. It almost felt like four episodes of a drama that had been run together. But that is a small complaint about an otherwise excellent film. Perhaps there is life in the old franchise yet. Bond is dead, long live Bond.
Casino Royale 2006
delcerro8823 November 2006
well i sorry to say that i not satisfied with James bond yes i fond the action in the crane incredible good but i miss the humor of James bond usually that was one of the things that more i enjoyed , well is my opinion anyway i would not consider it the best bond ever the movie wood be better if the agent would have been 008 of maybe 009 because James bond always accomplished all his mission with humor and kind of grace so this is not James bond , for one side you see him as a guy who never smile very tough guy and in the other hand in love of a woman who safe him in order to get the money of his winning by the casino ,he knows she was using him and still almost die for her my real oo7 would not do that is to important to died for a woman like that or any other
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
High Stakes
jldmp126 November 2006
It's been a tough task to sell successively new 007s over the last four decades; so job one is getting a new Bond to fit into an existing tuxedo of fast Aston Martins, faster women, martinis, exotic settings and danger around every corner - and do it in a way the audience will accept.

I think Craig solves the problem by -not- fitting into the stereotype at all: he's buff, angular and his large hands are in proportion to his body in the manner of Michelangelo's David - a slayer of giants. He isn't lithe or refined; more SAS than double-0. And this self-reference is used as an occasion to wink at us, what with the all the anti-clichés that pop up throughout: Craig clashing with the role(not caring about martini bartending methodology), Bond clashing with the world of Intelligence(getting caught on camera and looking bad).

Indeed, the one very clever cinematic self-reference throughout this that struck me was the awareness of 'surveillance cameras', or more precisely, how 007 is berated into growing such an awareness...

We see that chances were taken at every level; within the film, the 'promotion' of Bond to double-0, and outside the film, the 'promotion' of a relative unknown to fill the shoes of an icon. The 'Casino' is all about the mechanics of the hottest game of chance right now (Hold 'em). So everything's at stake at once: Bond reading 'tells' from the villain as it relates to the villain's motives in the movie world, the facade of the poker game appearing to be what matters, Bond's ability to read the girl's 'tells', and Craig as the instrument that is used to play with our ability to read the real 'game', that is, the noir game that the movie plays with us. Neatly done.

Oh, and visually, it's a knockout. Not just action, but -cinematic-action. Note the "Citizen Kane" flavor of the intro. The opening title sequence looks very much like the work of the UK's Shynola. The fuel tanker fight quotes "Raiders..." The first chase scene on the cranes betters "Goldeneye" by a wide margin, in fact, this may redefine how we judge chase scenes, period.

One other interesting bit is the change in tone...this is the first Bond feature to be produced after 9/11 (though not the first released after 9/11), so no more 'laser beams', at least for a while...note how the target of terror is an airplane. The terror financiers have Secret Service and Central Intelligence all over them, so they've adjusted. Reality has gotten tougher in the last five years; so has Bond. They're off to a good start by taking a 'meat and potatoes' approach.
9/10
Martin Campbell saves Bond (again)
mentalcritic12 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Things were looking bad for Bond in 2002 when the attempt was made to appear more "now", by embracing the worst pop drivel. Intended as a celebration of the franchise lasting for twenty episodes, instead it drew scorn from long-term fans of the character and apathy from the very generation whatever audience it tried to pander to. So for the next four years, a lot of to and fro went on in public and behind the scenes over what kind of Bond film episode twenty-one would be. Fortunately, the forces of good have won out this time, with GoldenEye director Martin Campbell taking the reins and making his second entry in the five best films to feature Fleming's superspy. Adding to the rebirth quality of Casino Royale is that the powers behind the franchise have decided to go back to the very beginnings of Fleming's saga. In so doing, they discard a lot of the baggage (and hopefully the entirety of Roger Moore's tenure in the role) that the character was starting to groan under the strain of. This is the first Bond film in which an overwhelming majority of the elements are "right".

The bad news first. Casino Royale is a lengthy film, and feels it. While time literally seems to fly during the action sequences, the necessary exposition to give them their oomph slows the film to a crawl. The sequence in which Bond breaks into M's home to look through her computer is probably the only dialogue-heavy sequence in the film that does not feel as dialogue-heavy as it is. This problem was also present in GoldenEye to a degree, with the momentum dying off rapidly whenever Bond took a break from killing things in order to explain what he is doing and why it is so important to the plot. Making matters a little worse in Casino Royale is that the film often jump-cuts ahead in time, and the final three scenes that wrap up the loose ends feel incredibly disjointed. This is the one fault of Casino Royale that gets in the way of its perfection, the editing. However, one cannot blame the editors for wanting to trim the dialogue sequences, either. If it were not for the action sequences, the vitriol that had been aimed at Craig by idiots with nothing better to do would have turned to hatred.

Just as Casino Royale shares a weakness with GoldenEye, it also shares a great strength. The action sequences take Casino Royale to its glory. Daniel Craig looks the part of a soldier trained to kill on the quiet, and he gives a subtle, nuanced performance that screams "take your words, eat them, and die" to those who heaped scorn on him before the final cut of the film was assembled. Not only will you walk out of this film thinking Craig is Bond, his ability to show Bond changing and developing as he learns more of his trade will briefly make you forget anyone else ever played Bond. Even the great Timothy Dalton, who was hampered by some of the worst theme songs ever chosen and one of the worst of the Bond women, is left in the dust by this performance. I am not going to insult your intelligence or the stuntmen by saying Craig looks good leaping from the scaffolds. I will, however, say he is incredibly convincing punching people in the face or throwing them down a flight of stairs.

Since this is essentially a reboot of the franchise, we get to see all the elements that we were saturated in without explanation during the other twenty films. Although they are never mentioned, we get to see the early indications of the existence of SPECTRE. It is also nice to actually see the first of all those women Bond failed to save, or the first of the numerous men he has killed, as alluded to in Campbell's prior effort. It does clash a little with one's memories of the franchise, especially as the film updates the novel's setting to the present time and references contemporary world affairs. It is a bold move that could have backfired in a big way, and the Broccoli estate deserve acknowledgment for having the guts to see it through. The end result is that for the first time since 1989 or 1969, we get to see Ian Fleming's Bond rather than Albert Broccoli's Bond. And as I indicated before, making it all the sweeter is that no other film in the franchise has shown so much of Fleming's Bond.

I just cannot stress what a stroke of luck Casino Royale turned out to be. According to reports, Quentin Tarantino wanted to make the film in 2004 with then-Bond Pierce Brosnan. Brosnan has a right to be angry with the Bond producers, as after the scripts that were quite apparently written by monkeys who had drunk turps for the last three films, the quality of this one must seem like salt in the wound. Tarantino, on the other hand, has been left with egg on his face, as the pseudo-philosophy of his overrated, substance-free posture-fests that he has become famous for will not compare favourably with the down to earth, back to basics approach that we got instead. Possibly for the first time in all of its forty-four years, the Bond franchise has shown the world what the market for action films needs, as opposed to what it needs to avoid. The only sour note, aside from the aforementioned problem with keeping the pace consistent, is that we must keep hoping this level of quality can be maintained for a while. After all, Brosnan's first Bond film was hailed as a new beginning, too.

In all, I gave Casino Royale a nine out of ten. Other studios with franchises can learn from this, as it is what happens when you listen to the more intelligent segment of your core audience.
8/10
Better than both Daltons and most of the Brosnans, anyway
dfranzen7018 November 2006
The first thing to consider about this twenty-first Bond screen foray is that it's not a continuation of the first twenty. In fact, it doesn't even take place in the same virtual universe - it's as if those other twenty Bonds never existed. The film takes place in the present day, but it's about Bond's beginnings as a 00. So scratch the 1962-2002 Bond adventures, obliterate them from your memory banks, because they just plain never happened.

The film begins with a black and white scene that shows the two kills Bond (Daniel Craig) must make in order to attain 00 status. The two deaths starkly illustrate the types of killing Bond will need to do: One is a brutal drowning in a men's room, and the other is a subtle shooting.

Then the real action kicks in, as Bond, in deepest, darkest Uganda, is tipped off about a rogue bomb dealer and winds up blowing up part of an embassy. Oops. He's exiled by an unforgiving M (Judi Dench, reprising the role she's had for five films, now), told to take some time off. Because, you see, he's a loose cannon, a ticking time bomb, an egotist who just can't separate emotion from his work. At any rate, we know that this setback won't last long, and sure enough Bond's traced his bomb dealer to a Greek magnate who looks like Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat, and from there he's led to Miami and a thrilling scene at the airport involving a fuel truck and (of course) the world's newest, largest airplane in, like, forever.

All of this leads up to the casino of the title, as Bond must play Texas Hold 'Em (replacing baccarat from the 1967 version of Casino Royale) against high rollers, including the Bond Bad Guy, Le Chiffre, an odd-looking Eurocreep who weeps tears of blood. Other than the blood thing, he's kind of bland, but his icy disregard of, well, everything lends a distinct air of haughtiness against which Bond can play. Accompanying Bond is Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the typical smart/pretty Bond Girl we've seen in the last several films in the series. She's supposed to watch over Bond and all the money he's been staked in the game, but naturally she must keep emotional distance from the Lothario. Can she do that? My gosh, I do wonder.

Missing from Casino Royale are gadgetry (including Q) and bon mots typical of action heroes. Well, wait, the former's not completely; we do see a nifty tracking device implanted in Bond's arm, but that's not as exciting as, perhaps, the invisible car in Die Another Day, or killer shoes, or something. Also gone, sort of, is Bond's womanizing attitude. Well, it's toned down, anyway; at one point, Bond tells Vesper that she's not his type. What type? she wonders. "Single," says the spy. Ah, so that's how it's gonna be.

Craig was pretty good, actually. It's got to be monumentally tough for an actor to play James Bond nowadays; with each film, there's more for the next guy to live up to. Roger Moore's first entry was pretty darn good (Live and Let Die), but it still took him a little while to fully grow into the role. Timothy Dalton never did. Pierce Brosnan's work improved as the quality of the movies themselves declined. Craig's ice-blue eyes - those have to be contacts! - say a lot, from a character that plays his cards very, very close to his chest. I think the best thing to be said about Craig's work here is that he acquitted himself rather nicely, and that if he does indeed continue with the role, he'll get even better as he reaches his comfort zone.

And, for the first time in recent memory, the plot's not too convoluted. Several of the Brosnan Bond movies were overplotted to the point of hilarity; there were so many exotic locations and minor characters that it was easier to sit back and wait for people to get killed so you could sort out who was, indeed, good. It's a little easier this time around, although there are a couple of good twists in the final reel of the film.

As new Bond Girl Vesper Lynd, Green is appropriately alluring and clever, innocent but corruptible. Will she fall for Bond? Yes, probably. Will he fall for her, though? Ah, that's a much tougher question. Regardless of how it turns out, though, you get a sense that Green is a good match for Craig; she's not taller than him, at least, and they just plain look good together. They do seem to have a palpable chemistry on screen, which is more than one could say for, say, Brosnan and Denise Richards in The World Is Not Enough. At least the makers of this one had the smarts to cast someone who could act against someone who could act.

There are two ways to judge a James Bond movie: against other Bond films, and against other action films; after all, Dr. No practically reinvented the action movie, and the subsequent Connery Bonds transcended run-of-the-mill action movies. Casino Royale is an excellent action movie, and it's a highly entertaining Bond film in its own right; a fine first effort by Craig and better than several of those that came before it.
10/10
Back to basics
ODDBear21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This latest James Bond adventure is truly one of the all time best. Going all the way to the original source, Casino Royale, the first novel written about the super British Agent.

The story is great and the best since 1987's The Living Daylights. This is a real spy story, with many red herrings and plot twists and you're never really sure who the real bad guy is. And despite many truly magnificent action set pieces this is actually one of the more earth bound Bond flicks around.

Daniel Craig is great as Bond. He looks the part, certainly built for it and displays a wide range of emotions giving the character more depth than Brosnan and certainly Roger Moore ever did. And that just makes him more human. He even makes mistakes here and grave misjudgments of situations and is physically and emotionally bruised. A bold move but the right one as the series was certainly heading into oblivion with just another one of those pesky indestructible characters who save the world with not a scratch on them.

Going back to basics; covering the origin of Bond, makes for a possible great new run for the series and the story here certainly lays solid ground for the next entry. Some trademarks are present but in alternate form and some aren't and, to be honest, I didn't miss them. New dimensions are added for Bond and the series and it all looks great.

Can't wait for the next one.
9/10
Why is he the man he is?
tccandler17 November 2006
"Casino Royale" returns to the beginnings of the Bond saga, answering the question that has lingered in the background of the action packed series for forty years. The fact that it answers the question so emotionally and comprehensively makes this the best Bond film of all time. After all, when you get a glimpse of Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, it isn't hard to understand why 007 evolves into an emotionally detached killing machine with a twinge of sarcastic humor to numb the pain. Losing any girl that beautiful would break any man's heart. How, and why, he loses her would turn most hearts to stone.

Daniel Craig steps into the legendary role with all the swagger and charisma required to make the legion of demanding Bond fans entirely satisfied. He is a chiseled and grizzled version, more reminiscent of Sean Connery than either Moore, Dalton or Brosnan. It will take three or four more films before we can accurately compare and contrast... but he knocks this first effort right out of the park. He is brilliant. But more on him later.

The story begins, quite literally, with Bond, having just been promoted to double-0 status, "executing" his first mission. His first kills as a servant to MI6 are the intro before the much anticipated musical opening. It is strange how renowned and beloved these Bond openings have become over the years. "Casino Royale" delivers one of the best Bond tracks ever recorded (You'll Know My Name - Chris Cornell) overlaying a very retro-style graphics sequence that plays with the theme of playing card suits. Look for a gorgeously subtle touch hidden in the Queen of Hearts!!! The only thing missing from the sequence was the silhouette of a naked woman -- I thought that was part of the deal with these sequences? This time around, Bond is on the hunt for Le Chiffre, a man who weeps blood and is fiercely determined to get his hands on over $100,000,000.00 -- whether it is via stock market fraud or an insanely high-stakes game of poker. When the first option is thwarted by our secret agent, the cards begin shuffling and the large-denomination chips begin rattling.

James' financial contact, who fronts him the $10 million buy-in to the expensive game, is the elegant and classy Vesper Lynd -- a mental equal to Bond and the woman who holds the key to dismantling his armor. She is played by Eva Green, one of the most naturally beautiful and sexy women I have ever seen on the big screen. She first came to my attention in Bertolucci's recent masterpiece, "The Dreamers". Green is an actress so quintessentially French that she makes her other countrywomen seem merely French-Canadian. Not that there's anything wrong with French-Canadians! Needless to say, there are twists and turns, explosions and stunts, Martinis and cars -- this Bond film doesn't fail to deliver any of the expected goods. Although one of the famous verbal landmarks we have come to expect doesn't appear until the final moments.

What this movie does so supremely well is to humanize our previously impervious hero. He is in the early stages of his double-0 life and this is the story of HOW he becomes Bond. It is a brilliant touch that adds a layer of pain and depth to a character generally considered shallow.

There is an emotional weight to this story. There is a physical weight to the action sequences. Nothing feels fluffy and insignificant in this film. It is, without question, the most impactful movie in the entire series.

I cannot say enough about Daniel Craig. If this weren't a Bond film, I would have the balls to suggest that he should be considered for an Oscar. After all, it ain't easy to step into this role and add something that no other actor has managed to even try. For the first time, I actually thought of 007 as three-dimensional... as vulnerable... as a man capable of true love. Which leads me to Eva Green...

Eva Green makes all other Bond girls look exactly that... girls. She embodies Vesper Lynd with intelligence and power and conflict and an uncontrollable sexiness, all of which serves as Kryptonite to James. Again, she is not content with providing a night of passion and few double-entendres... Vesper is a real character, and she needs to be, in order for us to accept James Bond's transformation.

Even the bad guy in "Casino Royale", in spite of the clichéd facial scar, is less cartoonish than found in previous installments. Mads Mikkelsen plays Le Chiffre with a calm understatement that shuns the over-the-top antics of other Bond villains. The high stakes poker game, and all that surrounds it, is perfectly composed by director, Martin Campbell. None of it ever crosses the line into cheese or camp.

Everything about this movie smacks of authenticity. It really feels like something massive is at stake... And no, I am not talking about the fate of the world... I am talking about the fate of a human being. "Casino Royale" is a bitter-sweet Bond film, delivering all the typical treats, but offsetting it with a meaningful love story and vulnerable characters who are affected by the loyalties and betrayals of others. This is my favorite Bond film. It is one of the best movies of 2006. I cannot wait for the next chapter -- After all...

...James Bond will return.

© Written by TC Candler IndependentCritics.com
8/10
Good, Very Good
meeza16 December 2006
I do have to give the latest Bond release the royale or should I say the royal treatment. It was popcorn entertainment at its apex. Daniel Craig plays all the right cards in "Casino Royale" as the new James Bond. This blonde Bond will bond with many Bond films aficionados which prefer a more rugged, menacing Bond. The film is based on the Ian Fleming novel that focuses on 007's early days. Jimmy boy's nemesis this time is Le Chiffre played by Mads Mikkelsen; Chiffre is a corrupt banker, who like most antagonists in Bond films or in all action films for that matter, do their malevolence stuff to collect a whole bunch of mula. Le Chiffre's obscure peculiarity is that he cries blood. Yes, he is Le Chief of the "bloodshot eyes" and contrary to popular belief not Mel Gibson. James and Le Chiffre duel it out in a cerebral casino card match and eventually in more hands-on type of matches. Eva Green plays Vesper Lend, a feminist accountant who lends her wisdom to James but initially not her body. Green is incandescent and has to be one of the most beautiful women in the world. "Casino Royale" stirs it up with plenty of classic Bond action sequences that are gripping and exhilarating. Director Martin Campbell's "soup"er dexterity in constructing "Casino Royale" was commending. The only misfire in "Casino Royale" was its semi-droning screenplay. In summary, I hope you feel that my film review for "Casino Royale" was naught shaky and immensely stirring. **** Good
8/10
A Meaner, Cruder Bond
pacieterra-128 November 2006
I may be one of the only lifelong fans of the James Bond franchise who hated this movie. I tried to like the new face and demeanor of Daniel Craig, but I thought he was totally wrong for the part and not particularly attractive. Having seen all the previous incarnations of dark-haired, very suave, and elite actors play the role, this new man has certainly nailed an ugly, dark, and rough character. Daniel Craig plays the role, perfectly, in the new style, (if that's what you like), but all the great theme music, gadgets, and great-looking women are missing. Even Judi Dench, who is always in top acting form, seemed irritated and bored playing against Craig. Only time will tell if a new audience supports this alternate choice of Daniel Craig, (as several others were considered, including Clive Owen, who would have, ideally, maintained the traditional image).If the producers want to either attract a different audience, or really kill the franchise after so many years, this movie can do both.Fans of both Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan will not be able to tolerate this change, (despite its promotion as being the closest to what Ian Fleming intended). I walked out of the theatre after the first hour; it was too different and ridiculously bombastic throughout.
9/10
BEST Bond Movie Ever!
John_Chewy29 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I didn't even like James Bond movies before this one as Pierce Brosnan was the only Bond I knew, so don't hold it against me. Daniel Craig nails his Bond debut and breathes life back into the series. This 007 movie gets everything right. Craig's take on the character is gritty yet vulnerable. The parkour fight sequence at the beginning is insane! Mads Mikkelsen (now known as Hannibal) is spectacular as the villain. And who will ever forget the infamous "ball whipping" torture scene (I cringe just thinking about it)?! Eva Green's Vesper is also the best Bond girl ever and gives heart to his character. Beautiful visuals and story-telling. Anytime I question who the best Bond is I re-visit this flick and am reminded... Daniel Craig is.

PS - And YES I did go back and watch every Bond movie ever made and Craig is still the best, period.
10/10
The best Bond, James Bond
tomascerqueiro2 October 2021
James Bond came back in 2006 with a Batman Begins inspiration and made it the best Bond film of all time.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Before Bond
jacknicmusic24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Die Another Day' - the predecessor to 'Casino Royale' - was perhaps the worst James Bond movie ever to grace our screens, so it's with good reason that most cinema goers are approaching the latest Bond instalment with much trepidation.

And with all the negative press surrounding Daniel Craig (rumours of his lack of driving abilities, his pain threshold, and - obviously - his blonde hair) it's clear that this was a film that just HAD to impress to stop a flop.

But to he honest, no one need have ever worried.

In fact, the pressure surrounding Daniel Craig for his performance in 'Bond 21' can only have helped him prove us even more wrong. (And his hair is more blonde/brown, anyway!) The film begins with a gritty black and white opening and breaks the tradition of all 20 other James Bond films previous to this.

We swiftly move from one exotic location to another, with impressive directing skills in play by 'Goldeneye' director Martin Campbell. (Lets face it, Goldeneye was the best of the Brosnan era). He delights in particular throughout the card game; not the easiest situation to make interesting for a viewer. (If perhaps the dialogue was unnecessarily propelled by the supporting actors).

What is also as equally impressive is Daniel Craig who wears the Bond title like a 10 year old slipper - comfortable. Expect Craig to appear in the Bond suite more than once; he's here for a while - and that is a very good thing! Acting, in general, is flawless. The action sequences are classically formed with blinding special effects and daring sequences reinvented to make us gasp.

The script is also to be praised, with keeping the cheesy bond clichés alive and well, but in a subtle format.

But a warning for when you watch this movie. You must be patient.

There's no Q, no gadgets, nothing to relate back to the Brosnan period (or as a matter of fact, any other the other Bonds). This is the bit that has caused the most controversy over Bond fanatics.

But I think they are missing the point.

This is before James Bond is ACTUALLY James Bond as we know him. This is the distinct reason for lack of the 'Bond Theme', lack of gadgets and lack of familiar characters.

The producers have cleverly constructed a film that is actually pre-Bond so that when 'Bond 22' hits our screens we are ready for Daniel Craig to play Bond as we know him.

Bond is an extremely flawed character (in terms of traditional Bond) in 'Casino Royale' - he falls in love, he makes mistakes and he gets battered and bruised. (The torture scene is a cringe-worthy but hilarious scene!).

This was the point of the film; we see Bonds weaknesses and now we know and understand exactly why he hasn't ever endured long romances or made the mistakes identified in 'Casino Royale.' Make no mistake. Bond 22 will be a return of Bond as we know him - the point of Bond 21 was to show us HOW EXACTLY he BECAME the sleeping around, reckless, ruthless Bond that the English culture has cherished for decades.

Expect Bond 22 to be a revival of classic Bond - with all the grit and realism of 'Casino Royale'.

And if you can't wait until then, 'Casino Royale' will do the job more than well. It's bloody good.
7/10
Craig and Green excel in a well directed series of exciting set pieces, even if the film feels very long
luke-a-mcgowan30 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My biggest guilty pleasure movie is Die Another Day and I'll always be a Pierce Brosnan apologist, so the fact that hatred of that movie and love of this movie are always mentioned in the same breath led to a lot of resentment on my part. However, I can no longer sustain my belief that this is a bad movie because whilst I don't particularly love it, I cannot deny that its powerful and quality filmmaking.

Daniel Craig is ace as Bond. The tone of Casino Royale right from the starting sequence is of a slightly brutish assassin, more in the vein of a Bond henchman than a 00 agent. We can see it in every movement and action - there's no class, just pure effective action. All throughout the film Campbell and Craig select the perfect course of action for this character. He's got touches of class, but he doesn't wear a mask of polite detachment, he gets flustered and angry. He can hold his own in a fight, but he is never fully outclassed nor does he feel like a superhero. The character created on screen is just right for this movie.

In the supporting cast, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen stand out as the best Bond girl and Bond villain ever put to screen. Vesper Lynd is a human being, not a walking vagina called "Juicy Wigglewiggle" or something appropriately stupid. Green has absolutely terrific chemistry with Craig, both in banter, in love and in dramatic moments. A gorgeously crafted scene where a vulnerable Lynd clings to Bond in the shower is worth watching of itself. Compared with Solange, Casino Royale's other Bond girl who almost has a big sign saying "PLEASE HAVE SEX WITH ME", Vesper really does stand out. It should be noted however that Campbell and the screenwriters don't have Bond actually sleep with Solange, he just seduces her, solicits information and gets back to the job. Its moments like this that show that Bond is moving away from porny predecessors. Mikkelson is also a breath of fresh air, as more of a Bond adversary than a Bond villain. There's no satellite lasers or preplanned Skyfall chase nonsense, there's just a terrorist financer who they need to bankrupt. He still has the quirks of a great villain - the bleeding eye, the nervous ticks - but he doesn't stroke a cat or anything like that. Judi Dench is also delightfully sharp as M, and her mother-son dynamic with Bond is really very nice, particularly during the last scene in which she counsels him.

The set pieces in this film are astounding - a record breaking car flip, a breathtaking parkour chase, a staircase fight, a dash for the defibrillator, a chase in the airport, a sinking building - there's just too many to love. Campbell really excels at each, but his best scenes are ones involving mindgames between Le Chiffre and Bond, particularly an iconic scene where a naked Bond is tortured by Le Chiffre. Bond's vulnerability is what makes Casino Royale so gripping, unlike previous instalments where he's been barely fazed by any of his adversaries.

My biggest problem with Casino Royale is is enormous length. There are three distinct stories here - the villain only matters in one, the Bond girl in two. All of them are fine, but I found that the film dragged in places and it is very hard to sit through the whole thing. Casino Royale feels more like a trilogy of short films than a single story. For some other problems, I also found some of the character choices towards the end to be questionable and there were far too many betrayals and layers. My biggest pet peeve was Mathis' habit of explaining to Vesper what was happening in the game we were watching, it was extremely irritating and it broke the tension that Campbell, Mikkelsen and Craig were creating.

I never really liked Bond that much as a franchise, but Casino Royale is a good film and I'll give it credit for that. Its just not something I'll rush out and watch at any opportunity.
Daniel Craig Although A Good Actor Is Too Old For The Part
bwlass16 December 2006
Everything else has already been said about the movie so I will comment on the lead actor who I think is all wrong for this franchise.

Daniel Craig is too old an actor to portray a young Bond especially if they want to make further movies. He is almost 40 but he looks considerably older and even if they buffed him up for the part he still looks too old.Botox? And he also has a Slavic look about him that is a bit distracting.Gez I seem to be tearing this poor man apart but they did throw him out there as the next saviour of the Bond franchise and he took the bait. Rightly or wrongly he is James Bond ...for now.

A younger actor of say 25-30 would have been better as he could have matured along with future movies.I heard that Henry Cavhill was being considered but was too young/pretty(?) or perhaps not experienced enough BUT truthfully Craig is just not Bond material and PLEASE that does not mean he is not a good actor.Let's face it , he just isn't charismatic enough to pull this off and horrors! I cringe to say this NOT GOOD LOOKING ENOUGH. I recently saw him in Enduring Love (2004) and even in that where he played an author with glasses and a satchel , he still looked like a geeky gangster and I kept thinking "This can't be the next James Bond!!" And yes he was very good in the part.

Will there be another Bond Movie? Well they had better hurry as Craig is not getting any younger. Apparently one is to come out in 2008 so we'll see how that fairs at the box office. This one was quite successful but I'm not sure it was for the right reasons.
5/10
Sean and Timothy--you still rock!
sharkey19727 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I love James Bond. I have read all of Fleming's novels. The best thing about this Casino Royale was the fact that they released all the old films on DVD in collector's format. And just for the record, it really isn't based on the book, Casino Royale.

Sure, there are plot points. The torture scene, the romance with Vesper, the infamous line 'the bitch is dead', which is a wonderful end to the book, so why not end the movie there as well? But Vesper's character has been truncated. In the book she is also an agent and has been passing information for years to save her lover's life. She has far more depth and far more culpability in the book.

Baccarat is the game played in the book, not poker, which just doesn't have the same glamor factor. And what if none of us know how to play baccarat? They could have found a way to make it comprehensible. The whole casino scene just lost it for me there. It seemed more like Atlantic City, rather than Monte Carlo.

And okay, get rid of the cheesy gadgets, but install a heart defibrillator in the car instead on the off chance that someone might poison him with a heart drug!!?? Oh, yeah, this works for me. Is this any less believable than the oil slicks or ejector seats or--it's been knocked so much on this website--Peirce's invisible car? And by the way, that little incident isn't in the book.

And what can I say about Daniel? He has no physical attraction, no charisma and quite frankly, being a tortured soul doesn't mean you have to act like a block of wood. If you want to look for a Bond who is better and true to Fleming's character, go to DAlton. He was great and very much like the Bond of the books.

I missed the humor, although I will say, it had a rather good script.

I found that guy's eye problem annoying, not very necessary to the plot and it made his villain seem weak. What was the point, anyway? It was better than the worst of the Bond pictures--Moonraker, for example--, but it certainly wasn't the best ever.
3/10
bond ruined
miguelgferreira29 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
no Q no classic bond stuff, they have ruined what a Bond movie is supposed to be! What a disappointment... - bond in this movie acts like a teen girl discovering romance - bond is not supposed to pass through walls like hulk would - a car bond would drive has missiles, spikes, machine guns etc - bond isn't supposed to wrestle, he uses some gadgets from is watch - bond would win at poker with a royal straight flush, nothing less! - the bad guy just wants to make money, a bond's villain objective is nothing less than rule the world by himself - bond doesn't fall in love, he is a womanizer - after a fight a real bond fixes is bow-tie and smiles to the girl - a bond opening is not supposed to be that lame

i always liked bond movies, even the bad ones. this one... the ripped the 00 status from the other movies in order to make money...

i'm sorry about the English, not my mother language
10/10
Excellent movie, serious, impressive and does't pull a punch
sir-montag19 November 2006
Bond is back and there isn't a drop of cheesiness. THANK GOD! Daniel Craig is one of the best actors to ever play Bond without reservation. He looks the part, acts the part, talks the part and exudes "Bond" through every pore. No silly spy gadgets (the ones that are shown are reasonable, serious and useful things indeed), no ridiculous scenes that make you sit back and think "Yeah right, that would never happen in real life".

The Bond ladies look... Very, very good. The chemistry is excellent and Vesper is without a doubt the most kick-ass Bond woman in existence.

Long story short, it looks good and is good. The Bond franchise is back in business. Go see it!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Daniel Craig makes for an GREAT 007....
va_eer23 November 2006
The 007 in Casino Royale is smooth but not a "pretty boy"... he can get caught off his guard but recovers well... damn! Talk about a hard-body dude... I just wish I had his physique after busting my ass at the gym 4-5 times a week... totally jealous! LOL Thumbs up for a job well done... bravo! The primary critique of the entire movie is the card-playing scene with every token race and sex represented... not that having proper representation is not AOK but it just seemed forced. And, of course, the card game outcome is VERY predictable but with a great twist...

I was hoping for a car that could do everything (as an Austin Martin should... LOL) but there were several cool cars just the same...

Do you want to see one of the best on-foot chase scenes you'll ever see? I was dizzy at how two "cats" chased each other all over the place... very nice... super moves, dangerous stunts... wow!!!

Overall... this was a fun James Bond movie... not too many techno tricks that seem far-fetched, typical beautiful women, AND NO CAR CHASE SCENES (sorry if that gives anything away but they are sooooo laborious)...
10/10
Bond as character study
Mr-Fusion8 April 2015
Part of me feels kinda bad that my favorite OO7 movie isn't a Connery . . . but to hell with it, "Casino Royale" is that good. This movie's a textbook definition of how to reboot a huge franchise and do it right. Just pare it all back to the basics: no gadgets, an unpolished OO agent, tie it into topical terrorism, adapt the very first novel, and find the perfect guy for the job. I love that Craig is so close to how Bond was in the book - which should never be a sacred goal in an adaptation such as this, but it's nice that it happened. He's sharp, upper-crust, yet bears the steely gaze of a killer. There's a lethal edge to this guy that makes this movie work so bloody well.

And it's a thoroughly entertaining movie, outside of the Bond aspects. The fight scenes are beyond brutal, they're downright nasty. And the action - be it free-running through a construction site or fighting off bad guys in a collapsing building - is propulsive enough to make you forget sheer size of this movie. In lesser hands, this story would be top-heavy, but they pull it off; and make it look easy. Not only that, but there's even time (in a go-for-broke action movie) to weave in a bit of a love story.

It's just so damn absorbing.

10/10
1/10
The Movie Sucks and the Actor also
Robdoghunter13 December 2006
Excuse me i'm very disappointed with the vote because i and couple friends mine we've seen this movie, and please let me tell you all, this is worst than mission impossible 1,2,3, movies and the actor (geez) is terrible to be a James bond character, it can be worst than Timonthy Dalton. This movie got a lot of action and actually i see James as bad character, looks like a villain. Well that was my impression. The actor Craig Daniel hasn't got no room to be James bond character, please people be reasonable this actor got be change. Actually the movie got something new, James bond dies for few minutes, the bonds girl dies in this movie but anyway it's good they change this kind of parts but it got no reason to a "shit movie" excuse that expression but is what it is. Sorry if you guys have read that but this movie doesn't have no chance of good vote. Change the actor, because iam James bond fan i've seen all the movies of James bond many times and nothing compares with that. I take my chances on casino Royall 1967
14 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond is Back & Action Packed!
TheDraytonSawyer13 January 2007
Wow this movie started out with a bang, and never stopped. There was not one boring minute in Casino Royale. There are so many crazy action scenes in this movie! Another thing I liked was this time around, Bond didn't waste any time and he took things seriously. He's very quick and boy can he jump like a monkey off tall construction cranes. The stunts in this movie are very good too; they look very real. Some scenes in this movie are pretty violent too. The torture scene was very graphic and was painful to watch. It's definitely a movie I'd recommend if you like Action movies or just James Bond films. Daniel Craig is one of the best James Bond's next to Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan in my opinion. The only thing this movie needed was Q, I missed his humor. Otherwise I'd give this movie a 9/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This is certainly not one of the Bond series....
heyheyet17 August 2007
Is this my problem? or i am the only one thinking that the movie is not so "Bond". First of all, 007 can always solve the problems on his own instead of asking for help from his boss. I can't believe that he even phoned M to help him to enter the airport. It would be too late to phone for help. well...but i must say that he was luck in this case that he suddenly thought about the message from the bad guy. Secondly, this is more like a Jason movie (a bad one though). 007 always has lots of technology stuffs. In this movie...nothing! where is the old...lovely Doctor? also, 007 always fight in a "elegant" way, not a "die-hard" way. Third, 007 is not so charming like the previous one...also...not smart as well. i miss the old Bond...

i definitely enjoy the 007 series, but unfortunately not this one.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale - Review
jonathanruano1 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the Pierce Brosnan movies became far too farcical, the makers of James Bond changed direction and thank god they did. The new James Bond (Daniel Craig)comes across as a cold stiff, but fortunately he is rescued by a plot that is awfully good until the last 20-25 minutes.

In contrast to the recent Bond films, "Casino Royale" is smart enough to be relevant and interesting at the same time. In the aftermath of 9/11, one of the major preoccupations of western governments was to freeze the financial assets of terrorist organizations around the globe. So what could be more topical that to have a villain, Le Chiffre(Mad Mikkelsen), who relies on his gifts at mathematics and blackjack to lauder money for terrorists, make a killing at the gambling table and then share the profits with his terrorist benefactors. On top of that, Le Chiffre cries tears of blood, is unusually sadistic and has a hot girlfriend Valenka (played by Serbian model Ivana Milicevic). But that is not the only thing that "Casino Royale" has going for it. "Casino Royale" has a different kind of Bond girl too. In the past, the Bond girls were - let us be honest - sex objects to satisfy the appetite of the hero, James Bond. After all, in "The World is not Enough," Denise Richards was never convincing as a nuclear physicist. Then the Bond girl evolved into an action hero so that Hollywood could protect itself against charges of sexism by showing "strong women" beating up muscular bad guys on the movie screen. But against this backdrop, the Bond girl in "Casino Royale" Vesper Lynd stands apart. Vesper is sexually attractive, but she is not defined solely by that quality. Vesper is not an action hero, but her brilliant intellect more than compensates. In short, Vesper offers something very rare in a Bond picture: a Bond woman who is strong precisely because she is very intelligent.

Finally, "Casino Royale" presents some very fresh material, like an impending heart attack induced by poisoning, a phenomenal battle of wills at the blackjack table and a great torture scene. Unfortunately this picture was partly marred by a silly romance scene near the end.

7.5/10
6/10
Craig miscast
rearkell2 December 2006
A few brief comments. First, I liked Daniel Craig in other recent movies he's been in, like Layer Cake. But I think that he does best in a real, everyday kind of role, like Michael Caine. Secondly, there's a glib humor that you see in other Bond movies that is missing here, or at least a "believable" glib humor. Again, I think that's because he does best in "everyday guy" roles. Lastly, I found the fight scenes to be a bit freakish. Maybe it's just my age showing. Maybe the world has evolved too far downward for a Bond figure to be believable anymore. That's the challenge, to make a Bond (and a scenario) that is believable in today's world. But I do think that he gives it his best shot, and that it's a worthwhile movie to go to.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig, a fresh new wind in the sails of the Bond saga.
koldaussie27 November 2006
I just saw the movie the other day, and I must say that Daniel Craig has to be one of the best 007's. He has the base charm of an early Connery with the ruggedness (well as Bond) that you could imagine a 007 in his early career would have had.

Eva Green in the movie was awesome as well, I enjoyed her in this role more so than her role in Kingdom of Heaven. Mads Mikkelsen as La Chife was just unnerving in a good way. Was as much as a shock to me as seeing Robin Williams as a stalker.

In summary, I give it a nine on the basis of some good acting, and primarily on the fact that is great to see a new and believable Bond. Looking forward to his next Bond assignment and hope that they may eventually remake some of the earlier movies with Daniel as Bond, especially Never Say Never Again.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best of the Bond Films So Far
sarusso-228 November 2006
This film really reawakened my interest in the Bond franchise, whilst I always went to see them it was more of a formality than an eagerness to see them. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed them, but I was never impressed by them....until now.

An excellent reworking of Bond himself, the way the film was delivered and thankfully they stopped all these ultra-fantastical devices from being introduced at the beginning of the film, when you know they will certainly be used later on.

One of the best aspects was the plausibility of the villains and their plots, they were realistic ambitions, none of this "I am going to rule the world" rubbish. By downscaling the ambitions of the villains one would expect the stakes to be lower, but as a viewer you do not feel any loss of tension as a result.

The chemistry between Bond and the ladies he crosses is excellent, and the stand out scene of the whole film to me is his first meeting with Vesper Lynd, which is just pure movie heaven.

Craig IS Bond!!!!
4/10
Miles away from Bond's style.
konitzlee4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am a big fan of James Bond. Yet I fail to understand why would they make such a bad Bond movie.

CAREFUL: The movie's OK, it has good action scenes, it is well done, I particularly appreciated the limitations in CGI usage, but Casino Royale, has way too much action, and no style, and when you take out the style in a Bond movie, the whole thing would look like any action movie.

Where's the irony? Where's the fun? Where's the typical good/evil fight? If I want to see good action scenes, I go for The bourne.

I particularly disliked all the unlikely-to-happen scenes, people jumping like monkeys, palaces sinking, police cars flying because of a 747's go around. JUST BORING. We have enough of that Hollywood bull, old Bond movies didn't have any of that, and were 20 times better.

And again the worst detail was him falling desperately in love with Eva Green. It may have been in the book, but the whole thing looks 110% cheesy and fake.

I repeat, this is a very good action movie, but nothing more. We want the Bond's style back. We will be waiting for it.
10/10
Bond is a pit bull
tim-reimer30 November 2006
My father and i went together for Bond Movies since "daylights" in 1987. So this Films was our 20 th anniversary of a Bondpremiere. We went to our local cinema and expected a film thats worth this special evening.... It was way beyond great over all our expectations. This is the best Bond Movie i saw in cinemas so far... Bond is like a raw pit bull and he has to go through the toughest and worst nightmares of all Bond Movies. I think the torture scenes are in direct competition with "Hostel". But the cool thing is the brutal humor that fits perfectly in that scene... I love Bonds relationship with Vesper in this movie. Their first scene together in the train is the best conversation ever shown in a bond movie!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Maybe the best Bond...
K3nzit28 December 2019
A great thriller and maybe the best Bond movie of them all. The story is smart and the acting brilliant. The ending may seem a bit odd, but not if you watch the sequel 'Quantum of Solace' right after this one.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awful, worst Bond ever (in both senses)
sillybuddha28 September 2008
Sadly the film fails as an enjoyable Bond on many levels. Craig's portrayal of Bond is poor, he never gives an air of sophistication, breeding or wit, and his always-sour face makes him look like a grumpy toad. There are none of the gadgets we have come to love in Bond films, and no super-villains trying to take over the world. The whole thing is very small potatoes, and to be frank, a little dull. I didn't care what happened to Bond, or the world he inhabits. This Bond tries too hard to be the Bourne Identity and not enough of a spy fantasy. We needed more humour, more tech and more action, and less posturing. This Bond is a waste of time, Bond and the real world don't mix.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
You want action, you got it!
LeRoyMarko27 January 2007
As soon as the nicely done opening credits are over with, the action starts. And what a great action sequence! My favorites scenes: the airport one and the poisoning sequence at the Casino. From one end of the world to the other, James Bond is back and he's showing no pity for the enemy. Daniel Craig does an excellent James Bond. He's got the charm, the look, the wit and the athletic "prouesse" that goes with the character. I like the fact that he shows a bit more vulnerability than in other Bond movies. And I really liked the "Le Chiffre" character as the villain. I must confess that the last Bond movie I saw before this one was "Octopussy". But "Casino Royale" makes me want to see the ones I missed. Seen in Toronto, at the Fox Cinema, on January 26th, 2007.

83/100 (***)
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Could have been one of the best.
ookevin00715 November 2006
CASINO ROYALE could easily have been one of the best Bonds in the series. It was great to see a Bond that was a throwback to the classic Connery films. The film is full of incredible action sequences, good dialogue, locations, the darker mood is terrific, and the characters and the women are great too.

It was well filmed and directed, and the casting was perfect, except for James Bond. Daniel Craig is a good actor and I have enjoyed him in other films, but he is not James Bond. He carries himself very well in the action sequences, but he has no charisma, and he lacks the screen presence of the previous Bonds, even when he seems to be copying Connery's style of line delivery. He comes off very wooden in his performance. He kind of looks like Steve McQueen's unattractive cousin, not James Bond!

The J.B is supposed to stand for James Bond, not Jason Bourne (or Jack Bauer either)! It used to be other spy films copied the Bond films. Now the Bonds appear to be copying the Bourne films. Craig would make a very good Bourne.

Too bad, as this film would have been fantastic with the right actor as Bond. I also didn't like the whole reboot idea of the series. It means that all the other missions never took place! If the film was to be a reboot and follow the Fleming book, why is Judi Dench, a hold over from previous Bonds films, in it? M was a man in the Fleming books, and having her there makes the whole reboot thing confusing. The title song is also very forgettable.

To me, Connery was the one true Bond. Brosnan and Lazenby were very good too. Roger Moore was very Saintly in his Bond Comedies, and Timothy Dalton was the worst. I put Craig a cut above Dalton, but I can only hope that the producers come to their senses and replace him as Bond as soon as possible.

I have read all the books and been a fan of the series since the beginning, and I did like the direction this film took getting away from the over the top situations and gadgets, but surely there is a better choice for Bond than Craig. As a Bond fan I hope they can make a change before the next film, as he didn't work for me. The adds say the critics are raving, it will make you forget all the other Bonds! I don't think anyone will ever forget Connery, and the critics are truly raving to even suggest it!

Aside from Craig and the reboot, I thought it was a very good film. I take 1 point off for the whole reboot idea, and 2 points off for Craig.

007 out of 10!
8/10
BOND HAS RETURNED
mikayakatnt19 March 2020
A breath of fresh life into the James Bond series.

Casino Royale restarts the franchise with a more realistic, brutal take on Bond. The film strips away the excessive gadgetry and CGI that was a trend in previous titles. Thank god. This new direction helped set the tone for Daniel Craig 007 movies to come.

The action sequences action-packed and satisfying. Though, the main villain(s) were a bit underdeveloped and the movie left us at a cliff-hanger. Some died a bit too fast, IMO.

Some things still did break my suspension of reality. Why is such a high-stakes poker game have such lax security? Vesper can walk up to Bond while he's playing. Bond can walk away from the game uninterrupted for hours. People are found murdered and kidnapped but security/police is not alerted despite the clientele at the game.

But besides that, I'm glad the film does great justice to its source material.

4/5. One star off for some laziness in writing, still a great film.
7/10
Good movie.
emojihundred4 June 2021
This is the only "Bond" movie i've seen and it was good. Good action and i wanna play poker.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best sorta cliche but very mind boggling
gabrielmorenocorredor25 February 2019
This movie with Daniel Craig the best James Bond with the most serious modern adaptation of the Bond franchise. I don't know why Daniel Craig reminds me of Agent 47 from the Hitman franchise. The mind tricks are very good showing the acts of what poker (I think) is,it is a game of mastery that only the best succeed. Mads Mikkelsen is and excellent actor doing his role of a Russian gangster who gives you that sort of intimidation which works.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond Fans and Bond Critics Rejoice. Your Prayers and Bitchings Have Been Answered.
he_who_leads16 January 2007
Everything you've heard is true. It's the best Bond film in years. They re-invent it. Daniel Craig has the right stuff. It's fun, funny, fresh, exciting, tense, gritty and just a bloody great film.

Daniel Craig: My God, James Bond has proved that looks really don't matter. Craig's face, kindly, is rugged; truthfully, is sorta squashed. His ears stick out and more than one person has remarked to me that he looks more like a Bond villain than Bond. Plus he's blonde in real life! But Craig has what it takes. His Bond is masculine, gritty, icy, charming, cool, funny, sexist, sensitive and soulful. What comes through is Craig's strengths as an actor. Whether being tortured, dying or falling for the girl, Craig makes you believe. All those people at Craignotbond are probably a laughing-stock to their friends and family now!

This Bond film addresses all of the problems and awkwardness with the previous Bond films. It seems that Martin Campbell (Goldeneye) and others have really taken a hard look at the franchise. Case in point: People wanted the light-hearted sexy fun of the past Bond girl without making her a cliché air-headed victim that needs saving. Consequently, we got a little bit of everything like Denise Richard's nuclear physicist (smart!) in shorts (sexy!) with the name Christmas Jones (playful! / traditional!). It didn't ring true. However the only way to go is with quality. Eva Green is fantastic as Bond's equal - Vesper Lynd. She matches him in every way while retaining a vulnerability that is as human as well as feminine. I think I'm in love. Also, it is worth noting Mads Mikkelsen as villain Le Chiffre, who is a genuine bad ass.

What this film does is boldly address the Bond conventions and comes up with the right answers through sheer inventiveness and sly playfulness. They know that by now we are in on the joke and the usual stuff is handled delightfully - ordering the drink, the car, the suit, bedding beautiful women. But it doesn't awkwardly mock or rubbish the conventions while still trying to enjoy them. Instead, it respects them and views them as delights rather than constricting problems that have to be dealt with. It's this sense of fun and opportunity that pervades Casino Royale. Things just flow together so well, I honestly wouldn't mind this film winning some sort of screen writing award.

Unlike 99% of the action films out there, the action and fights in this are brutally realistic rather than the rolling around slap and tickle we've come to expect. It really raises the bar. It's grasping, desperate, brutal and shocking as lives are put on the line. I think it was Pierce Brosnan, who said that if you're not getting bruised doing Bond you're not doing it right. He's right, but the fight choreographer, Daniel Craig, and stunt-people have really stepped it up for this film.

This film is really a 9.5 stars because of a slightly wandering final 30 minutes or so, but I have to choose between 9 and 10 so - 10. The first majority of the film is an absolute pressure cooker, especially the long poker scenes (it was a brave gamble to play them out for so long).

Overall, this really is an A for effort. Those whose motto in life is 'there are no short-cuts to quality' will feel gratified by this film. Instead of fumbling around and hoping for the best, everyone involved in this film has put in so much thought, energy, and devotion, I just feel like hugging them.

Men want to be him. Women want to be with him. Ladies and Gentlemen, Bond, James Bond, is back.
10/10
Don't Believe the Hype!
grahammcdonald17 November 2006
firstly I love Bond, Who doesn't?! but after seeing this I now think Bond is properly dead. The good = The beginning is not bad, it promises an exciting movie, edge of seat time.

The bad (and there's a lot)= The beginning Lied, Slow pace, Too long, 0% gadgets, their is a baddie's baddie's baddie for goodness sake - all very confusing and all very pointless. finally frustratingly the film leads to a sequel - of which I won't be viewing. Bond Fans like my mate will say, yes it's more accurate to the book blah blah blah, I say to you, no it's just plain boring!!!

This film really could of worked, shame about way too much product placement I mean I love sony but this is just silly!

amendment:- Since watching it a few times I now love this film, I've climatised to it and I'm looking forward to more!!
10/10
Bond is back, reinvigorated and ready for the next generation
man-myth-legend9 March 2008
I absolutely loved this film. Daniel Craig brings a unique, fresh approach to the characterization of James Bond - the character is reckless, makes mistakes, and lets his ego sometimes impact his judgment. Craig is a superb actor, and does the Bond name and franchise true justice. This is by far the most violent of the Bond films, and Craig really displays Bond's lethality and cold-bloodedness perfectly. Mads Mikkelsen is a very good baddie in Le Chiffre, Eva Green is perfect as Vesper Lynd, and Judi Dench is elegant and commanding as usual as M. I cannot wait for the next film Quantum of Solace which continues the story where this film leaves off - the first time in the Bond franchise that this happens. If you have not seen this film, it comes highly recommended. Daniel Craig is the personification of Bond as Fleming wrote it. See this film!!
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Ambivalent. Good non-sexist action film, but is it Bond?
kyrat23 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm torn. Do I prefer the more realistic, more psychologically interesting film? Or do I want the campy, over the top stuff?

I can't be too upset that they deviated from the formula. I have a hard time watching original James Bond films - they can be amusing and so infuriatingly offensive at the same time. But because they're so over the top they can be amusing enough to overlook the sexism, racism & homophobia in the early films. (and apparently I'm the only person in the world who does not like Sean Connery).

In this film, I was so happy to not see overly sexualized naked women, no overly exoticized 'native' women for Bond to love & leave. No evil seductress. (Though there was the obligatory 'good' one that sacrifices herself). And not having the woman named after her vagina or tits was refreshing. The lack of misogynism alone makes it worth watching (IMO)!!

The film was OK as a basic action film. As others have said his character seems more like Jason Bourne than James Bond.

You have Bond learning how to be a killer, learning how to be a spy.... presumably becoming the Bond we're used to. (sort of how Batman Begins 'restarted' the character). This is the pre-cool Bond. He hasn't gotten the fancy cars, how to wear a tux, doesn't have a favorite drink and one who actually cared about women as people, not as nothing more than a body.

This not quite the James Bond we're used to... (yet).

This is both interesting and a disappointment, simultaneously.

The problems: Leaving out some of the key elements did hurt the film. The previous franchise succeeded because: -We liked thegadgets. They were silly, but they were interesting. -We liked the over the top villains -- we can see everyday villains in all the other action films. This is what we watch the Bond films for. We laughed at the man who takes over the moon or tries to burn the world, but it was kind of fun. -We liked seeing the suave collected & cool Bond. Seeing the uncertain, struggling Bond is interesting, but not what we want to see. -It doesn't have Pierce Brosnan. Craig is OK, but no one was as born to play the part as Brosnan.

And finally, but just as importantly: Get rid of the product placement (lost a star just for that). It's cheap and tacky. Can you not get enough funding for a Bond film that you have to whore yourself out? Trust me, I'm not going to run out and buy a watch so I can look like Bond.

Anyway, I would give the 2nd film a chance (at least a rental). I'm curious to see how they will continue the evolution of the character into the cool, but cold killer we know and love/hate.
10/10
Best Bond Film Yet!
timdalton00720 November 2006
It has taken fifty-three for Casino Royale to make its way to the big screen (not counting a 1954 TV film and 1967 spoof) and it now seems both fitting and ironic that the first, and arguably best, Bond novel should serve as the first Bond film of Daniel Craig. Even more ironic is the fact that one of the best Bond novels has lead to the best Bond film yet.

Daniel Craig's debut as Bond is nothing short of stunning. Many wondered if this blond actor better known for his more serious acting roles could be an action hero. The answer: a definite yes. Craig brings a physical magnetism to the part of Bond missing really since the early Sean Connery films and he is believable in all of the films action sequences. But what really sells Craig is his acting abilities. Craig brings a very serious approach to Bond. He is everything Bond should be: cold, ruthless, and capable of being a human being. And when it comes to humor, which a lot of fans were worried about, Craig is just as adept. Any doubts about Craig as Bond, they should be taken away at the very end of the film where Craig gets to say "The name's Bond James Bond" for the first time. Craig is the best Bond since Timothy Dalton and arguably he has even surpassed Dalton.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, the representative from the MI6 sent with Bond on his first major mission as a 00 agent. Green brings a considerable amount of acting ability to this role and she is far from your average Bond girl. While beautiful and truly stunning physically, Green is an actress and she gets to prove it more then really any other Bond girl. Green is truly an amazing Bond girl and a welcomed relief to the stereotypically cardboard Bond girls.

Mads Mikkelsen, a relatively unknown Dannish actor, makes an impressive Le Chiffre. Bond villains generally lack either believability or acting ability, especially since in Die Another Day. But there we get arguably the best Bond villain of the series to date. Le Chiffre is a villain, he is after all the man who serves as financier to the world's terrorists. Yet there is a surprising amount of humanity in him. He deformed eye that weeps tears of blood and his sense of both menace and humor make him the most three-dimensional Bond villain and even at times sympathetic. Mikkelson is the new face of Bond villains.

The supporting cast is also great. Judi Dench returns as M, the head of MI6. Her scenes with Craig have a sense of menace to them that surpasses similar scenes with Pierce Brosnan. Dench had more or less inhabited the role of M since Goldeneye but in this film she once again makes the role her own. Jeffrey Wright makes a brief, but welcomed appearance as CIA agent Felix Lieter and we can only hope we see more of him in future films. Caterina Murno seems to be little more then window dressing as Solange, a girlfriend of one of the villains, but she leaves one wishing we'd seen more of her in this film.

The script is also perhaps the best to be written for a Bond film. Based on the novel by Fleming, the films plot is an update of the plot of Fleming's novel. The plot is realistic and the lack of gadgets doesn't hurt the film at all. The love story, the first in a while, is a nice addition to the film. The lines are well written and time is taken to actually develop the plot to its fullest and Fleming would be, in my opinion, proud of this film adaptation.

The action sequences of this film are stunning. From the gritty black and white fight in the opening teaser sequence the to the running sequence in Madagascar to the attempted bombing of Miami international airport to the stairwell fight and the gunfight in the falling house in Venice at the end, the action sequences have a sense of realism missing from many of the Bond films.

Campbell, who directed Brosnan's debut in Goldeneye, does another stunning job in this film. Working with cinematographer Phil Meheux (who also did Goldeneye) and editor Stuart Baird, Campbell created a visual style that brings a new sense of style to the series. From the excellently done black and white teaser detailing how Bond got his 00 number, to the shaky hand held sequence during which Bond is poisoned, and the darkness and shadows in the brilliantly done torture sequence, there is a sense of realism. The sets and costumes also help thanks to production designer Peter Lamont and costume designer Lindy Hemming.

The music score by David Arnold is the icing on the cake. No longer having to adhere to the typical Bond score, Arnold creates his best Bond score yet and overall the best Bond score since John Barry's score for On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The score uses the Bond theme sparingly and when it comes back in full force at the end you welcome it back. The score makes good sue of a new love theme and sparingly uses electronics that had hampered the previous Arnold scores. The films theme song, You Know My Name by Chris Cornell, is a welcomed addition to the Bond theme songs and is a vast improvement over the last two or three Bond theme songs.

With strong performances from the entire cast, one of the best scripts for any Bond film, strong direction from martin Campbell, terrific cinematography and a great score by David Arnold, Casino Royale delivers. This film was meant as a Bond reboot and it has more then done that. It the process of rebooting the series, the filmmakers have created the best Bond film yet.
1/10
Ugh! Just a dumb, boring and bad movie
noshit!14 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
26 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sorry, this is a dumb movie with unbelievable action sequences like Jason Statham's Transporter movies. At least with the Transporter series, people know it's supposed to be over-the-top but come on, this is James Bond.

The movie has a lot of explosions that seem to be there for no reason than to convince everyone the movie has a big budget.

I was disappointed with Daniel Craig's weak portrayal of Bond. For example when he was chasing an African arms dealer, the arms dealer jumped and landed better, thus making me think the arms dealer should have been Bond instead.

The movie is dumb because when the arms dealer had a chance to kill Bond by stepping on his hand when Bond was desperately hanging on to a crane hundreds of feet above the ground, the arms dealer passed up the chance for some dumb reason. Wait, I know why, it's so Bond can recover and continue to chase him. Duh!

Craig does not convince as Bond. When shirtless, he looks like a gorilla rather than a suave secret agent. He is ugly (sorry) but he can act a little (but not enough to convince he is Bond). He looks most of the time like a p*ssed-off Vladimir Putin.

The girl Eva Green has a nice complexion but isn't drop dead gorgeous I'm afraid. On a scale of 1 to 10, Daniela Bianchi being 10, I'd give Green a 3.

Poker so tediously slow it is like old maids playing Old Maid.

A meandering plot that bores ultimately and is way too l-o-n-g.

Oh by the way, no Q (therefore no clever Q gadgets) and no Moneypenny.

Not featuring Miss Moneypenny I think was a particularly bad mistake because Moneypenny has always been there to guide James Bond. For example in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' Moneypenny went as far as to save Bond's job by changing Bond's resignation letter to one requesting two weeks' leave, and in 'Live And Let Die' she saved Bond embarrassment by keeping M from discovering the beautiful Italian secret agent hiding in Bond's closet. Since Bond is in Casino starting out as a secret agent, it is only logical that Miss Moneypenny should be around to help in some way.

Worst of the Bond movies therefore because it is so un-Bondlike and dumb. See 'From Russia With Love', 'Goldfinger', 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'Diamonds Are Forever', 'Live And Let Die', 'The Spy Who Loved Me', 'The Living Daylights' and 'Goldeneye' for classic Bond.

Clunky and self-important - which the Bond franchise never was - Casino is in stark contrast to the humorous 'Live And Let Die' where the acting of Yaphet Kotto alone is worth the price of admission.

Or if you just want to see an action movie, there's XXX, The Transporter and Rambo. They are way better, and smarter.
8/10
The greatest Bond film/The ultimate Bond
rwelsh_legal20 November 2006
James Bond like Batman, Superman and Spiderman is without a doubt a cinematic icon. Unlike the aforementioned, he was not created as a cartoon, inhabiting a fairytale world of monsters and competing super heroes. Rather, Bond was a creation of post world war 2 and (then)present day cold war tensions. Cold and cunning a government sanctioned killing machine, Bond would ply his rough trade in a world where love was a scar, trust a deadly mistake and violence as much a reward as a hazard of that trade.

Some measure of Fleming's character was inhabited by Sean Connery and until now the measure of all the Bonds who would follow. For myself and untold millions of others, the early films i.e. "Goldfinger", "From Russia With Love", "Diamonds Are Forever" "The Spy Who Loved Me", were able to catch that special cinematic magic that allowed these films to transcend their potboiler like genre trappings and become etched in memory. As for most of the Moore and other Pretender Bonds, I for one haven't seen a Bond film from start to finish since "Moonraker".

"Casino Royale" left me with the same feeling as that which I was left with after seeing "Goldfinger" for the first time 40 years ago. James Bond, the world's greatest spy, transcending time and no less than seven other Bonds(only one of whom was more than a pretender), has been reborn, not as an heir to Connery but as the embodiment of Fleming's hard as nails creation. If there is any doubt as to this fact, the much talked about torture scene should dispel any comparisons with any other Bond. Daniel Craig has taken an icon which had been turned into a cartoon, re-invented him and created a character that is as much his own as it is Fleming's and yet remains Bond to his audience. Isn't this what great acting is? Isn't this what should be revered and awarded? Certainly there must be more to acting than a marquee role in a cheesy soap opera.

During Craig's torture scene I was reminded of De Niro in his great Russian roulette scene in "Deer Hunter". In addition to the action sequences there is a poignant love story (the great interaction between Craig and Eva Green could only have been realized with fine acting and writing)which is more than can be said for most of the blockbuster trash being passed off as tear jerker's. Again, there are several magnificent scenes requiring "Great Acting" i.e. the shower scene and the "revelation" in one of the final scenes. Sure, a touching revelation in a love story is nothing new, but in this film's context and the poignant "acceptance" by Bond/Craig it is truly something special. The score by David Arnold is pure John Barry and better for it(does anybody miss Barry like I do?)

There are several wrong turns which made the film an 8 rather than a 9 or 10. The opening title song was horrid (Chris Cornell), "Black Hole Sun" would have had more impact. Judy Dench(is there a more overrated actress?) her "What the hell is he up to?" line still makes the hair on my neck stand up. I watched Helen Mirren's final "Prime Suspect" last night and can't help but wonder what she could have done with a better written role for "M" in her Jane Tenneysen mode (think of the sexual tension she and Bond would have generated). Bond's ability to spot anyone, anywhere in any crowd was a bit of a throwback to the clownishness of Moore/Brosnan but the crowd that made their films a mint need a bone too. Beyond those quibbles, this is the greatest Bond film and Craig is the ultimate Bond. "James Bond will be back" and I for one can't wait.
8/10
The best James Bond film
briancham199424 August 2020
To me, this film is the best James Bond film, though Skyfall (2012) is similar in quality. Gone are the days of cheesy gadgets and one-liners. Daniel Craig is a more brutal kind of Bond along the lines of Jason Bourne. The film itself has a longer, darker and more compelling feel, which paved the way for more action films of this style in the 2000s.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is back
garyod718 November 2006
Thought it was superb, good laugh seeing all Craig's doubter eat their words, and if they don't, they're lying. Anyone who doubts or doubted him has clearly never laid eyes on a Fleming novel - slating him for his hair colour? Had he dyed it would they have then backed him? Don't think so.

The casting was inspired throughout as was the soundtrack. Comments about the plot being thin are misplaced, since when was a Bond movie meant to be The Usual Suspects?! Also disagree that it was too long, Bond movies don't come out too often so I say we enjoy every minute he's on screen. Well done to all involved it hasn't let anyone down and again, Daniel Craig is an unbelievable James Bond.
12 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bod, James Bod
shadowycat16 November 2006
I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about Daniel Craig taking over the role (what was wrong with the last guy - wasshisname again? I forgot already) but after seeing the film at Sony tonight I have to say he's OK. He's certainly ripped... and he looks pretty fly in black tie.

He's a more physical and agile Bond than some of the other guys, and the script went a few steps closer to humanizing him too. There's a couple of tender scenes between Bond and Vesper Lynd where this Bond reveals a sensitive side... and I can say without qualm that this is the first time I've ever ended up feeling sorry for James. He's more impish, more sneaky, more vulnerable, and more impervious.. the guy's made of teflon and he's practically a superhero.

All that said, the film captures the exotic and glamorous nature inherent in the franchise, there's some boffo violence and superb chase scenes, and they even squeezed in a 1964 Aston Martin because at the end of the day, they know its the TRUE BondMobile (accept no substitutes!) I found the beginning and ending rough, the boyfriend thought there was about 18 minutes too much on screen. We don't want the time back, you definitely want to see this on the big screen (action movies need big screen impact) and I loved the locations - Madagascar, Venice, and Eastern Europe.

There's alcohol, gambling, fast cars, grandiose shootemup action, great Bond music, super hot women, yes it's got all the elements. It's also super trendy, I have no doubt other than that this one's gonna seem as much "of its time" 25 years from now as the original Casino Royale seems today.

We just caught the original last Sunday on cable (as "research" in preparation for this night) and while he same basic story's in play, it's not what you'd call 'a remake'. The story's there, but a lot of the time I was either cringing from the ultra-violence or thinking "whaaa?" whenever the action went over the top (there's some 'Fear Factor'-worthy stunt work in this picture!) I did find myself MST3K-ing a bit... (watch for the 'Enzyte Man') and I've been careful not to post any spoilers... but it's FUN... Way Fun.
9/10
Reinventing Bond
Buddy-5114 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The long-running James Bond franchise gets a much-needed shot in the arm with "Casino Royale," a film which gives us, in the person of Daniel Craig, the least foppish, most rough-and-tumble 007 since the early days of Sean Connery. Here's a Bond who's more at home in jeans and a polo shirt than in a perfectly tailored Giorgio Armani tuxedo (though he isn't above wearing one, if the situation calls for it). Gone, too, are many of the high-tech gadgets and preposterous, over-the-top villains that had begun to push the series increasingly into the realm of fantasy and further away from reality.

As conceived by writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and the seemingly ubiquitous Paul Haggis, Craig's Bond also has a noticeably darker side to his personality. The authors have gone back to the source here, to Ian Fleming's first novel in the series, "Casino Royale." This has allowed the writers to re-invent Bond almost from scratch as it were, and, indeed, the first scene of the movie - filmed in appropriately old-school black-and-white - shows us Bond literally gunning for his promotion to double O status (an agent can become an 00 only after he's successfully dispatched two victims). Yet, despite this Bond's seeming indifference to human life, Craig brings a vulnerability and depth of character to the role that nicely counterbalance the dry cynicism, flippant tone and callous womanizing that are still crucial elements of the character's mystique and makeup. Yet, even in that latter category, this new Bond deviates from the old one by striking up a genuinely romantic relationship with the beautiful Vesper Lynd, nicely portrayed by Eva Green.

The main plot - in which Bond finds himself on the Riviera playing in a high-stakes poker game against a notorious small-arms dealer - is secondary to the tense action scenes, wry humor and moral dilemmas that make "Casino Royale" a triumph for director Martin Campbell as well.

After years of delivering one fine performance after another in a string of less high-profile but often very worthy films, it's gratifying to see Craig finally achieving the acclaim and stardom he so richly deserves with "Casino Royale." With the help of his fellow filmmakers, he has nearly single-handedly resurrected this moribund franchise and reminded us of just how good a Bond picture can actually be.
9/10
The beginning of bond.
helmutty14 December 2006
Well, this is James bond you are talking about here, the guy who has the girls and gadgets. Many dream to be the guy which is James bond. I can't say he has no sex appeal. Again another dead-simple plot, the bad guy has to keep money for the terrorists and he somehow lost the money and wanted to bomb the plane but bond stop him and he moved on to his next plan, gamble.......here come James bond trying to pit his luck against him. Well, finally......James bond manage to stop him. But this James bond here is weak, he got hurt from time to time. Anyway, though the plot is simple, the music which i like something about it is great. When you watch it in cinema, you can feel the tense rising with loud booming sound. This one can't be missed. This bond movie is the first James bond movie I like. This movie is a lot fun to watch in the cinema. But you see, indeed everyone has a taste to something.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond flick for me. Period!!
piksplanet9 May 2008
Casino Royale is quite simply the best Bond movie ever made. And that in itself is saying a lot. After the likes of the two best Bond's(in my opinion) : Sean Connery, and Pierce Brosnan, do we have the best Bond yet.. ?

Pierce Brosnan, who portrayed 007 with unmistakable charm and arrogance was brilliant. But the Bond movies he acted in were quite pathetic when it comes to storyline(with the exception of Golden Eye).

The Bond Girls during his time were also quite pathetic. Teri Hatcher(Desperate Housewives anyone?), Famke Janssen(The X-Girl), Halle Berry(No, thank you), and quite outrageously, Michelle Yeoh(Haiyya!).

As for Sean Connery, oh let's not talk of him. He is flawless in whatever he does. Whether it be as Bond, or as the over-aged thief standing side by side with Catherine Zeta Jones in Entrapment. Trying to judge Sean Connery would be murder. His portrayal of Bond in Dr.No deserves special mention. Hats off, Mr Connery.

After Brosnan, came up names like Hugh Jackman(Mr.Wolverine), Clive Owen(King Arthur), and even Jude Law(Future Captain of the World). After all of that, they come up with Daniel Craig?? Blue eyed, blonde haired, chiseled faced, blabla blabla??

Oh stop the speculation, people!! He's brilliant, hands down!! In my opinion, the Best 007 yet.

Right from the opening 5mins of the movie, Daniel Craig captivates. A certain screen presence which Connery had, he has too. Perhaps even a little more. Two simple words in the opening sequence make him stand out.

"Yes, considerably," he says, after shooting a man.

As for the Bond Girl. Eva Green is captivating. She has a screen presence quite similar to Craig. The screen time she shares with Craig is worth watching. And she isn't a Bond girl who plays just the damsel in distress. She is one, but with high complications. Her first appearance too, makes her stand out.

"I'm the money," she says, seating herself across the table from Bond. "Every penny of it," says Bond, with a smile.

Beginning with a smash-bang 15min action sequence(without CGI or crappy gadgets), Casino Royale soars, keeps soaring, and flies out of sight. Le Chiffre played by Mads Mikkellsen(Eye-bleeding super villain who is Banker to the World's biggest Terrorist groups), is slithering, and scary. Every dialogue he delivers has a certain amount of villainy in it.

"Welcome, Mr.Beach. Or is that Bond? Ah, I'm a little confused," unmistakeably sarcastic, Le Chiffre holds out his hand. "Oh we wouldn't want that, would we?" says Bond, shaking it.

The only flaw in the plan of Casino Royale is that it pays a little too much attention to Bond's weakness, which results in 10 to 15mins of drolling. The movie, at 2hrs and 20mins is a tad too long thanks to that. For the remaining 2hrs, the movie proves it's worth.

Gadgets are thankfully given minimal attention in this movie. The audience isn't even allowed a good-clean look at Bond's Aston Martin. The action is brutally physical unlike other Bond movies. Sex is surprisingly kept at it's minimum too. Acting is brilliant. The new Bond is more of a man than some guy with gadgets coming out of his toes.

Watch out for the torture sequence. It is painful, yet humorous. The title song, You know my name by Chris Cornell plays throughout the film, and the opening credits are amazing. The Bond theme and the main Bond dialogue is kept on a hold till the very end.

Watch this Bond film for it's sheer guts, brutality, brains, and reality.

Casino Royale ain't any other Bond film. It's Daniel Craig's party! Straight A.
7/10
Pretty good
frenchy-4651416 February 2021
For the first of the James bond Daniel Craig collection I really did like it. It wasn't the best one it was pretty good. I recommend watching this films if you have not yet.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Action Movie but Poor Bond Film
politicon200328 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the worst James Bond movie. Nevertheless, it's one of the best action films I've watched. There are several essential ingredients of a successful Bond movie:

(1) The movie is set in exotic and scenic places;

(2) humorous interchange between Bond, his boss M and M's secretary Miss Moneypenny;

(3) a half-mad inventor Q who despairs of Bond's cavalier attitude to his gadgets;

(4) Bond's women to be beautiful, sexy and seductive;

(5) Bond only has a sexual interest in women and never becomes emotionally involved. He seduces women but the seduction is mutual;

(6) Bond has an impeccable taste and the flair of a man well-endowed with savoir-faire. He is a bon viveur and knows his food, wine and liquors;

(7) continuous action, even in bed, without lagging romantic and otherwise boring interludes;

(8) Bond movies are based on a high degree of fantasy, (John Le Carre, and SpyCatcher have revealed that the real world of British espionage is dreadfully dull and boring). Therefore, to appeal to any audience with average intelligence to make such fantastical high jinks palatable plenty of subtle humour - stopping just short of turning the whole thing into a comedy- is expected. For example in an early Bond movie a thug during a brawl with Bond ends up in bath tub into which is thrown a live electric fan. Admiring the deadly results of his mayhem Bond mutters "Very shocking!";

(9) The master villain is larger than life, completely mad and usually fond of nasty white Persian cats;

(10) In two of the best Roger Moore Bond movies there is also a secondary villain Jaws, a rather sympathetic thug.

Casino Royale does take place largely in exotic and wonderful places (presumably to give those of the audiences in e.g. Iowa or Alaska who have never owned a passport the thrill of foreign travel without the runs). However, whereas Roger Moore in Venice contents himself with mayhem in a Venetian glass museum, David Craig's Bond demolishes a whole storied fifteenth century palazzo overlooking the Grand Canal.

Alas there is no humorous interchange between Bond and M. Judy Dench as a female M has been miscast since the Brosnan days, a waste of a fine actress. Moreover, Miss Moneypenny has obviously been reengineered out of existence by some government cost-saving programme. There is no Q and Bond has to make do with his aging Aston Martin apparently without the gadgetry that came with it in Goldfinger. The first woman, Caterina Murino (a Penelope Cruz look alike), that David Craig's Bond beds on his mission is indeed sexy and a seductress but this beautiful Spanish-Italian actress has only a minor role. The leading star actress Eva Green is plain at best with a horrible make up that makes her look like Michael Jackson in drag and a hairstyle that must have been fixed by a misogynist. Her role is a woman completely lacking in charm.

David Craig is oozing excess testosterone, as required, but the script writers have made him become emotionally involved with Eva Green. A Bond No-No! Besides the rest of his character development (the supercilious Brosnan without the suavity) does not lead us to expect this outcome. Craig's scripted "weakness" give M a chance to scold him like a schoolmarm for being too trusting!

Elegant? David Craig portrays the 1990s Berk, reminiscent of an uncouth street-wise Billingsgate currency trader. He wears his suits and Tuxedos, when he's not in K-Mart denims, as if he rented them one size too big from Moss Bros. His dear old Mum must have cut his hair with the garden shears back home in Wigan. Hasn't anyone told the scriptwriters that drinking fizzy white wine and eating smelly fish roe on toast is now passé and bad form, as well as incredibly stupid, when in the middle of a high stake poker match? Also they have made the Bond character way behind the times in ordering a dry martini and forcing him to commit a blasphemy by replying to the barman that he doesn't care if it's shaken or stirred (one of Craig's few feeble attempts at humour). The action is one of the strong points of Casino Royale but with rather too many pointless boring interludes. The worst aspect of the movie is its almost complete lack of humour. A flaw also of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Bond movies that were made with Dalton as Bond. The few attempts at humour are badly delivered and feeble, the worst being the one about Bond' little finger, crude and cheesy at best. This film takes itself too seriously for its genre but maybe that is a sign of the times. The main villain is devoid of feline company and is a rather boring money launderer for world terrorism who is eventually knee-capped by Bond. The secondary villain (played by Mads Mikkelsen), is more in the Bond tradition, with a disfiguring cast on his one eye and an Adolph Hitler hairdo (they left out the stubby moustache which would have been too obvious). He is mild mannered, and more elegant than David Craig. He is very cool although his life is in danger because of missing funds owed to the big master villain which he must recoup by winning a high stake poker game into which Bond is planted.

I liked the movie as an action film with a nice twist at the end but a s a Bond movie it failed miserably.
9/10
Casino Royale is amazing and brings the best of James Bond
Screen_Blitz13 November 2015
Daniel Craig makes an amazing James Bond debut in this enthralling reboot of the classic spy series. Directed by Martin Campbell who was previously responsible of an earlier Bond film Golden Eye, this follows Secret Agent Bond who is sent by his boss M (played by Judi Dench) to travel to Montenegro to compete against ruthless arms dealer Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelson) in a high-stakes poker game. Along the way, he falls in love with the beautiful Wesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) who assists him providing the money he needs to outwit Chiffre. Before long, it becomes clear that whether Bond wins or not, his life is still in danger when he discovers that Le Chriffe has a sinister plot on his agenda.

This movie completely reinvents the iconic spy as a character. Abandoning the heavy high-tech gadgetry from the previous film and relying more on the action and character development, Daniel Craig steps into the James Bond character with energy and vibrancy and brings out one of the most spectacular performances of an action hero ever put on screen. Unlike the previous actors like Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery, Craig feel so natural as Bond that audience feel that they are not watching his amazing performance, but instead seeing him as the actual James Bond. He just really digs so deep into this character. The plot is falls nothing short of exhilarating and compelling with lavishing suspense and exotic set pieces like Miami and the Bahamas. The story is so brilliantly written from start to finish and even when the pacing slows down at some points, you never feel that there is a single dull moment throughout the film's run. Even the whole poker scene shows great potential at keeping the audience glued to their seats. Much can be said about the action sequences, especially the intense climax at the end. This is all thanks to the amazing cinematography and choreography.

Casino Royale sits at one of the high ranks of the James Bond franchise, and is certainly one of Daniel Craig's best roles. This film fires up the James Bond reboot with a bang and brilliantly redefines the titular character as a top-notch action hero.
5/10
Casino Royale Review - for all above age 15 ;-)
venkatkarthik18 November 2006
In the new "Casino Royale", James Bond has to work for getting to his targets – I mean really sweat it out. From the word "Go" action dominates the sequences with every move of Bond being aimed on his mission. Judi Dench as "M" does try put the brakes on the action of Bond with no success. Daniel Craig does have screen presence and for the first time we get to see a down to earth characterization of Ian Fleming hero. No gizmo's, only business. He is not as stylish as his predecessors but the dialogs do try to make him hip with an attitude. He is aptly supported by Ivana and Eva, the former the usual Bond entertainer and the latter a bit more serious affair or so it seems. While Ivana is seductively attractive – the type bond prefers, married, Eva is a bureaucrat who displays an "I don't give a damn 'bout who you are" kind of attitude from the scene they cut ice.. Bond is in hot pursuit of a murky character called Le Chiffre played devilishly by Mads Mikkelsen.He weeps blood from one eye. The movie is a bit long. It has a run time of about 130 minutes. Things begin to sag 20 minutes into the second half in that an emotional angle is introduced and you suddenly get that feeling that Daniel Craig is last in the Bond series and this is the last movie in the series. For an ardent bond admirer this movie is a must watch for its freshness of characterization. For the action buffs you can see it once if you are able to go through the emotional touches in the second half. On the whole this Bond movie is welcome and unwelcome, it neither here nor there, it is some where in the middle.Does Daniel Craig fit the bill? Hmmm.... my answer would be no.On the whole I feel it difficult to acknowledge this as a Bond movie.
Bond is back on form at last
Corky198421 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After a few lazy efforts in the series, Bond is well and truly back on form in Casino Royale, a film that restores some much-needed swagger to the franchise. I have to admit, I was a sceptic about Craig playing Bond, having never heard of him before he was cast etc etc. How wrong I was. Craig delivers a bravura performance right up there with the best: he can blend subtle humour with all the hardman/cool dude stuff so crucial for a film of this type. The plot in this was fairly simple: Bond has to win big at the casino to stop the baddies funding terrorism with their winnings. Its all done very well, with some really excellent action sequences, especially the epic chase early on when Bond is after some Ugandan bloke with crucial information. What was odd, however, was the idea that Bond has just become 007. We therefore have to more or less ignore the other films and imagine he's starting out again. The movie is much more modern than recent efforts and although this made for a grittier and better quality picture, I couldn't help but miss old characters like Q and Miss Moneypenny, although the latter more or less crocks up as Vesper, Bond's new bird. I'm no fan of Judi Dench and would prefer her to sit out future sequels, but the film was so good she didn't detract. Overall then, this is one of the best Bond films I've seen. So much so that I viewed it twice in three days and may well go again! You should do the same if you haven't already.
8/10
Ian Fleming's James Bond has arrived
soxlade22 November 2006
This is a staggering volte-face for the original action film series. When "Goldeneye" was released over a decade ago, I had high hopes that the Bond series was back on top again. Hopes that sadly dwindled as the Brosnan films carried on until we had the truly terrible "Die Another Day".

"Goldeneye" was Eon's response to "True Lies", and was directed by Martin Campbell - director of "Casino Royale", which is the Bond franchise's response to the hugely successful "Bourne" movies with Matt Damon.

"Casino Royale" is a sort of 'Bond Begins', a re-imagining of a classic character and, much like Chris Nolan's successful Batman film, "Casino Royale" goes back to the source material: Ian Fleming's novels. In doing so, Eon, Campbell and the cast have done something that we haven't seen in the 20 other films in the Bond canon: Put Ian Fleming's character on the screen.

Daniel Craig is the most authentic Bond yet: he is tough, bloody-minded, rebellious, charming, ruthless and (and this is the really important bit) he's a stone cold killer. Craig has a rugged face and bright, blue eyes which, when combined with the right lighting, can either make a woman swoon or a target faint. He is also an utter bastard, using and discarding people left and right, abusing his skills to further his mission and, in two brutal sequences, killing people without any remorse or mercy. Combine this with the fact that he makes mistakes, he gets careless and nearly pays for it, and he is so headstrong and determined that you fear he will get himself in over his head before he realises it, and you have the most characterful Bond we've ever seen. There is much not to like about him, but you have to keep remembering that he's one of the good guys: he's a killer, but he's our killer.

If Craig brings a ruthlessness and brutality to his role, he needs a worthy adversary - and he gets one in Mads Mikkaelsen's Le Chiffre. Without a doubt the most interesting bad guy in Bond history, he's a banker. He doesn't want to take over the world, he isn't miraculously more proficient at fighting than any of his trained henchmen. He is also, for a large part of the film, profoundly scared. This makes him interesting and, for the audience, unpredictable.

And then there are the girls - Solange is very much your typical Bond girl who falls for our hero's charms, but Vesper is a different proposition: A spunky accountant who can match our hero for quips and bon mots, holds his (financial) leash during the critical card game and, ultimately, shows us the horror us normal folk would feel if we ever actually met 007.

But this, one of the most brilliant resurrections ever seen on film, is not just about quality characters and good acting. There is top notch action that is superbly crafted, some sparkling dialogue, and a couple of plot twists that you will not be expecting. The free-running chase could be one of the very best action sequences not just in Bond films, but in the history of cinema.

This is a superb film, so why doesn't it get a ten? Well occasionally, just occasionally, Campbell overeggs his pudding. In a film that has a luxurious running time anyway a couple of sequences could have done with being removed and a couple of others tightened up (in one case I felt he missed a chance to jolt the audience and make a good joke at the same time) all of which would not have harmed the story, plot or character development one bit. Also there is the occasional clunker of a line which seems to have slipped through the net.

All in though this is a cracker. A full throttle re-awakening for Her Majesty's most famous secret agent. One of the most satisfying films of the year, and the best 'sequel' since "Batman Begins". This is like a very fine martini (shaken, not stirred of course) smooth, dry, satisfying and strictly for adults. Brilliant.
6/10
Give me the movie under another name and I would love it
calvinkid11 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is not a Bond movie. Is it a bad movie? Not very. Is it a great movie? Again, not very much. It is a decent movie with a decent plot, just not Bond material. I couldn't see what so many people liked about it.

Maybe I am up against many but Goldeneye was to me a great movie. Both in plot and in action. I have seen the old Bond movies, though I am not a very big fan of the old franchise.

You can watch Casino Royale if you want a grittier Bond, but for me there is a serious lack of that charismatic persona which Connery and Brosnan carries. Craig can pack a hard punch but can't carry out a witty one liner for all the money in the world.

Many have said that the Bond movies of the last decade were lost in gimmicks and gadgets. Bond movies come once in four years and once every four years I would like to see such gadgets. Reality, I can see anywhere. The only electronics you get in Casion Royale is advertisement for Sony (Ericcson, Viao,......). I can see them in any retail outlet, thank you. Oh and I forgot about the defibrillator. The medical kit is the most sophisticated thing you will find in the movie. No rockets, no remote controlled cars, no exploding pens, no satellites. I came to the hall to watch Q in action and instead I got a doctor.

And after a spectacular chase sequence 10 minutes into the movie, and a decent airport scene, the movie starts sagging. For the first time ever, Bond leaves guns and takes cards, playing Texas Hold'em for 40 minutes. And for the first time you get to see Bond falling in love, to the point of resigning his job as 007. And the ending just drops leaving you unsatisfied in spite of a fallen building. Apparently it is to be continued in a sequel BOND-22 (I hope they haven't taken the title from Catch 22). I don't care if this was the story Ian Fleming wrote, I want the Bond I grew up with. This one doesn't get out of any situation without help.

Moving on from the plot, the Bond girl, Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) was a twist from the usual, this time for the better, with brains along with looks.

The villain, Le Chiffre (played by Mads Mikkelsen) as the asthmatic gambler was just so-so.

So on the whole the movie is just OK, for me to give a 6.
4/10
Where does the hype come from?
ringorensing19 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am really confused of these good ratings. The "legendary" stunt scene in the beginning was horribly full of cuts. I wasn't nice to watch.

Maybe I am not the person the bond producers target at. Bond is a rude selfish guy with the ability of being an unprofessional agent,who creates lot of collateral damage. In all the Daniel Craig movies civilians get hurt or are victim of bonds selfish way of practicing his job. My grandfather would do better than him.

Additionally the film shows about 20-30 minutes of rich dudes playing Texas holdem with giant blinds. Afterwards the writers best idea was to create a scene in which bonds balls get tortured by a swing weapon.
8/10
A great movie... but not a great Bond movie!
jimbo70010 December 2006
Let me start by saying Casino Royale was a really good movie. I enjoyed it, and I thought Daniel Craig was/will be a great James Bond. The problem was, there was very little in this motion picture that indicated it was a James Bond film. The really slick pre-title action sequence was missing. The Maurice Bender style credit sequence was missing. There was no gadgetry. No Q. No Moneypenny. There was very little humor (even Tim Dalton's Bond contained some humor). They could have called Craig's character Ethan Hunt and called this movie Mission:Impossible IV. In spite of the fact that Casino Royale was jam-packed with action, and and had a better plot than a few other Bond flicks, it didn't seem like I had just watched Bond 21. I don't know where Barbara and Michael will go from here. I assume Bond 22 will further the plot of Casino Royale, trying to get the arms merchants, but I can't even begin to think of where they will go there after. Other than being a great action adventure, there is nothing unique about this version of Bond that will sustain it for any period of time. Thus, I consider the end of the James Bond franchise to be Die Another Day. Again, I enjoyed Casino Royale, and Daniel Craig was a surprise in his portrayal of 007, but there was no feeling of having visited an old friend after viewing Casino Royale. As a stand-alone action adventure, I gave this a rating of 8, but in spite of beautiful photography and a great soundtrack (although I didn't care for Chris Cornell's title song) and Craig's great performance.... as a Bond film I can't give it more than a 5 or 6.
7/10
If you were expecting the "good old" James Bond, then you are wrong
ukgaming20 November 2006
Everybody knows of James Bond to be a cool, sleek character with skills in almost everything and gadgets to help him with things he's not so good at. (breathing underwater for example) but Casino Royal puts an end to that. Daniel Craig acts well, and continues the fun and humour from Pierce Brosnan, but something about him is just not right. For a start, his body is oddly proportioned. (as you may well have seen in the trailers) The sleek Bond has been replaced with a body builder with almost no skills.

The films Directing has also taken a step towards Harry Potter standards. You'll see what I mean when you see the film.

However, the film has some exciting action sequences and a decent plot.

Hopefully next time we'll get some decent gadgets, a proper car chase and a villain who, well, doesn't look like a villain (weeping blood etc)
9/10
Casino Royale- The rebirth of Bond
Ibuk15 November 2007
Despite being a Bond fan I was not looking forward to Casino Royale. The first reason being Die Another Day disappointed me( the only highlight was Halle Berry coming out of the sea in a Bikini). Secondly I wasn't sure that Daniel Craig would be able to convince people as James Bond. I was however totally wrong. This Bond entry completely blew me away.

What is so fascinating is that this movie goes back into Bond's past and tells us why he is what he is. Daniel Craig was totally convincing as Bond, he brought a certain ruggedness to Bond. He is one of those people who if you were walking down a dark alley and you saw him running towards you, you would turn around and start running the other way. Eva Green was fabulous as his companion.

It did however take a while to start but post the airport scene (which blew me away) the movie really took off. After a series of forgettable bond entries the Bond series has been rejuvenated by Casino Royale. Coincidentally this was not the first movie to be named Casino Royale, there was a parody of the Bond movies that had the same name. Daniel Craig has breathed new life into the Bond series and has also re-established my interest in the long running franchise.
3/10
The most horrible "BOND" movie ever
warpzone20 November 2006
I like bond movies for certain reasons, Guns , Gadgets, Hot Girls, Crazy Stunts and an ever cool and collected Bond. These are things that anyone should expect from a Bond movie. Its what in essence makes a bond movie. This movie has none. The action scenes are OK. The girls would be OK in any other movie, not for a bond movie. Bond doesn't hang out with normal girls and Bond does not have to try too hard to get girls. He personality brings them to him. This brings me to my greatest disappointment. "NO GADGETS". I want to see over the top gadgets. Cars firing missiles, invisible cars. Laser watches. This movie has nothing. And last an extremely sensitive Bond.Don't get me wrong if the movie didn't have the title "007" it would have probably been a decent movie. But a bond movie it is not.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fabulous
ociopia26 November 2006
I've grown up with the Bonds, always loving Sean Connery as the ultimate sexy killer. I adore Pierce, Roger, and Timothy as actors and have enjoyed them in many roles but never felt that any of the three was James Bond as I could not seriously believe any of them to be a killer. Now comes Daniel Craig. Wow. Double 007 Wow. His flawed good looks project rugged and gutty masculinity, his blue eyes fly up in that rarefied Peter O'Toole and Paul Newman sky and he's a gifted actor. And obviously the screen play was great, as well as the directing.

What really brought this movie to excellence was the lovely Eva Green and the depth of relationship allowed between her and James. Instead of a vapid little sex kitten, as are most Bond women, Eva is a person.

Now don't misunderstand, the gorgeous sexual repartee is there and the chemistry smolders.

Gone are the silly 1960's sexist junk lines and the over-done gadgets. Instead, we have cell phone and laptop wonders that mirror today's world. And we have a flawed hero who is quite complex. Quite fine.

Craig runs about 20 marathons in this movie, is by far the most physical in action and interaction of any Bond, doesn't come off as arrogant or sarcastic but instead - he's a man. A delicious man. Plot? Irrelevant. Go see it.
8/10
Sometimes we pay so much attention to our enemies, we forget to watch our friends as well.
one9eighty15 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The 21st Bond gives us a new face and reboots the franchise taking us all the way back to, what was, Sir Ian Fleming's first story about the MI6 agent. "Casino Royale" introduces us anew to James Bond, first as he acquires his double-0 status, and then into the heart of his first mission playing high stakes cards against a terrorist funded opponent.

After earing his license to kill in Prague, Bond is sent to Madagascar to pursue a bomb maker called Mollaka, who he kills, causing an international incident. Clues he found point him to a corrupt Greek official called Alex Dimitrios who is in the Bahamas. Bond wins his 1964 Aston Martin in a poker game and seduces his wife and then must follow him to Miami, where Bond manages to thwart the destruction of a Skyfleet prototype airliner. This does not go down well with Le Chiffe, an Albanian private banker/ terrorist who has invested in the aerospace manufacturer Skyfleet. He has insider knowledge about the attack from high ranking Lord's Resistance officer, Steven Obanno and his mysterious financier, Mr White. To recoup the money lost on the investment, Le Chiffe arranges a high-stakes poker tournament at Casino Royale, in Montenegro. MI6 enters Bond into the tournament believing that if he beats Le Chiffe, he will force the banker to seek protection from the British government, allowing them to get information in exchange. Bond's contact in Montenegro is Rene Mathis, and Bond is staked the $10million buy-in under the watchful eye of British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd. In the tournament Bond initially gets the better of Le Chiffe, noticing his tell. On the quiet, Obanno confronts Le Chiffe and confirms that Bond has found Le Chiffe's tell, and then Obanna goes after Bond and Lynd. Obanna is killed and Bond returns to the game, only to lose all the money he has. In steps CIA agent Felix Leiter, who agrees to stake Bond the money to continue the game in exchange for taking Le Chiffe into American custody. While this is going on, Le Chiffe's lover poisons Bond's drink mid-game. Bond is forced outside to his car where he has a defibrillator, and luckily Vesper is on hand to help him survive the attack. He returns and finishes the game, and duly beats Le Chiffe. Angry about this and at losing money which wasn't really his, Le Chiffe kidnaps Vesper and uses her to trap Bond so he can get the account number and password for the money. During torture Bond or course refuses to give any details, and when Mr White bursts in and kills Le Chiffe, Bond and Vesper are just about left alive. Waking up in an MI6 hospital Bond outs Rene Mathis as a traitor who fingered him to Le Chiffe and then decides to retire from the secret service in order to live a happier life with Vesper. When M reveals that the treasury never got the money/winnings Bond had entrusted to Vesper he suspects something is wrong and follows Vesper. It turns out she is a double agent, and she is going to meet Mr White. Things get chaotic and Bond is unable to save Vesper from drowning. Later Bond finds out from M that Vesper's lover would have been killed if she had of refused Mr White, and she undoubtedly made a deal to save Bond's life too. It does not matter though, "the b***h is dead" according to Bond. Vesper did leave a clue about Mr White though, so Bond tracks the mysterious figure down to Lake Como.

Released in 2006, this is the third screen adaption of "Casino Royale". It is directed by Martin Campbell who sat in the directors' chair for "Goldeneye" too, and features writing by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis (the first two of who both worked on previous Bond films). Music in the film is composed and scored by David Arnold who has also worked on previous Bond titles too. Phil Meheux returns to lead cinematography, who like Martin Campbell, last worked on a Bond film with "Goldeneye". Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli of Eon are course are producers in this film, as they have done many times before.

With a budget of $150million a lot went into this film to make sure it was a success, and if global takings are anything to go by, grossing $606 million world-wide, it can definitely can be seen as a successful venture.

After Pierce Brosnan finished the fourth movie, he was committed to do in his Bond contract he stepped away or was let go/ fired - depending on what source you go by. Producer Michael G. Wilson claimed that there were around 200 people who he had considered for the role from Karl Urban, to Goran Visnjic, to Henry Cavill, Dougray Scott and Sam Worthington too. In 2005 though, Daniel Craig stated that Eon producers Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, as well as MGM, had offered the role to him. This was not strictly true, and Craig didn't like the idea of being Bond due to its formulaic approaches. After reading the rebooted script though, and reading all of Fleming's novels, as well as speaking with Mossad and British Secret Service advisors on the set of "Munich" he changed his mind. By this time there was already a backlash brewing, with UK tabloids getting behind a "danielcraigisnotBond.com" movement. Nevertheless, in 2005 Craig was indeed unveiled as the new face of Bond. He might not be the tall, dark, and handsome stereotype that people wanted, but he had the backing of the producers.

Casting Vesper Lynd would prove to be equally tricky with names such as Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Audrey Tautou and Cecile de France considered, but in 2006, French born Eve Green, was announced. Craig delivers a fantastic performance as Bond, who cares if he is blond, he does well as the hard man, wounded by life and his job, yet loyal to the cause. What he lacks in hair colouring he makes up for in his performance - even his eyes should get a credit here as they carry off a multitude of emotions. Craig manages to switch from a cold-hearted killer to a cock-sure gambler; from an uncertain and unplanning agent, to a tired and beat up shell that is loved up and ready to throw it all away. I previously thought Timothy Dalton would be the closest we get to a true representation of Bond, but Craig's performance blew up my expectations. Opposite him, Eva Green gives one of her best performances, she makes Vesper more complicated and cleverer than she is in the book. She carries off the role with style and grace, while being the harbinger of a secret plot that is not revealed till much later in the film. As Le Chiffe, Mads Mikkelson is great. I have long been a fan of him and in this film, he works well as the cold and complex banker that has got too close to real terrorists that use force opposed to money. All the cast do a fantastic job and it is great to see them all on-screen.

In the book vs film debate I can say that, unlike some other Bond films, "Casino Royale" is not that far off the book version. In both, Bond is sent to bankrupt Le Chiffe at the casino, both have the characters Le Chiffe, Vesper Lynd, Felix Leiter and Rene Mathis. Vesper is also a double agent that manages to get under Bond's armour and ultimately betrays him too. Considering the 53-year gap between book and film, and with other film's taking such liberties (like Moonraker, for which the book does not involve space travel at all!), it is nice to be close to the source material here. There are of course a few differences; thanks to the exchange rate the money in this is grander; Le Chiffe is working for SMERSH in the book but not so here; Vesper is cleverer than the dumbed down version in the book too; and also the beginning of the film is to give an origin story while the book just throws the readers straight into it.

So, in this, Bond is more like the version in the book, and less like the previous versions of Bond that have appeared in film. I did not actually realise how much I wanted a cold-hearted yet naive version of Bond until I saw this. I guess I had got used to the versions previously portrayed and was just settling for a version I liked. In this film I did not have to settle for anything anymore. Gone are the drink specifications; he is not interested in a fine cigar or beluga caviar; he is not that bothered about flirting and bedding every single woman in the room; and he certainly doesn't stop randomly to reel off a comical quip before dispatching the bad guys. Also, forget about the gadgets, there is no need for them when Bond is reactionary and improvises on the spot - who needs an unrealistic invisible car! Bond, like this film is grounded in more reality than any of the films before. This might not be the Bond that so many people have grown up with, but it is a Bond that is truer to his origins.

I really enjoyed watching this film, not just as a Bond film, but as an action/espionage film. It is dark, it is moody, it is gritty, and it is dangerous. It reaches the heights that other films have not reached in the franchise, but it also goes lower and becomes darker than others have gone before too. The runtime of 144 minutes makes this the longest Bond film we have been given so far, but I was engaged throughout. With a 12A-rating you should be able to put younger audience members in front of this, but I would advise caution due to the graphic nature of the content and the themes contained. "Casino Royale" embeds itself as one of my favourite Bond films and with Daniel Craig in the lead role I am happy with the direction the reboot has started from.
8/10
Bond and The Truman Show
rob.cottrell-223 November 2006
Like most of the comments I have read, I found the new chunky Bond an excellent movie. Reminded me of 'From Russia with Love', where Connery and Robert Shaw's characters are basically different sides of the same sadistic coin, and 'On her Majesty's Secret Service' with someone who could act in the central role. However, no one has mentioned the absolutely appalling product placement in this film. It didn't help that in the adverts prior to the film we had the two main brands, showing whole chunks of the most exciting bits - that we hadn't seen! - as Bond strutted around displaying their wonderful products. God, when things started we even had a conversation which went something like "That's a classy watch. Rolex?" "No", replies Bond. "It's an OMEGA!" I kept being reminded of Laura Linney's character in the 'The Truman Show'. Near the end, after Bond has just e'mailed a message to M on his Laptop, I expected him to hold it up and, with a beaming expression shout, "Look! I've just sent this e'mail on my super new SONY VAIO. Efficient. Sleek, with a dual atomic processor, and more than enough memory to send even those difficult messages to your Gran. It's surprisingly good value too!" Personally, I think this cold, ruthless even psychopathic Bond's next assignment should be at the marketing departments of these two companies. I'd more than forgive him.
8/10
Craig shines in good Bond
Stampsfightclub23 October 2008
After being promoted to a 00, James Bond (Craig) heads on his first mission to find the man who is behind the worldwide terrorist market.

In his first role as the infamous British spy, Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) proved critics and fans wrong with a silent leading performance as Bond in a good action thriller.

Craig's portrayal of the spy is intriguing to observe throughout as he takes Bond to a different level. His silent and sophisticated charisma gives the character a beautiful mysterious edge which is a contrast to previous performances by Brosnan and Connery. Though brilliantly acted, this silent exterior takes away the humour from the character and the cheeky little puns and we only see the charm of the agent towards mid point.

As this is where the Bond series starts, Craig's portrayal is therefore spot on and we can gain a greater understanding of the character and it's motives with all those different women and the nature to not settle down and unleash his anger on the world, and is the most interesting to watch in an action packed but inaccurate plot.

Opening in a completely diverse way, we see Bond sitting in a chair waiting for a man to enter. Filmed in black and white, director Campbell takes Bond to a different level with the use of flashbacks and the sudden urgency of the plot as the title sequence appears and Chris Cornell's You Know My name plays. Not the best Bond song but a catchy and energetic rock song nonetheless.

As the colourful title sequence seizes we are thrust into a typical Bond world with guns, stunts and fast cars, though sadly without the gadgets. These familiar elements will please fans and viewers alike as we see miraculous stunt after stunt and pure adrenaline.

Eva Green (The Golden Compass) makes the best Bond girl for years and Mads Mikkelsen makes one of the most boring Bond Villains ever to grace the screen. But perhaps that is down to a tough and poor script.

To gain a better understanding of Bond's character, we could have been given a longer introduction before he was promoted to a double 00.

There are also long pauses without dialogue when it was required to gain a better understanding of the background to the villain Le Chiffre. The action and Craig's Bond makes up for these lapses, not to mention a great and bitter twist which leaves the viewer shocked and eager to see Quantum of Solace which opens soon and is tipped to be one of the biggest hits of the year, on this Ian Fleming's 100th birthday year.

Though this wasn't the best written Bond film the action and intensity keeps the plot lively with a great performance by Daniel Craig
9/10
One of my favourite Bond movies!
funtasticfour27 October 2019
I've always loved James Bond. Great stunts and villains, some cheesy womanizing. This movie makes the character much more serious, and the stunts to another level or realism. Daniel Craig does a great job of re-inventing the character. Like Pierce Brosnan's Bond, this first one is also the best of Daniels.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A daily comment from Midget Emma: Casino Royale (2006)
I have never seen a James Bond movie before. This is my first one and it was a suspenseful, action-packed spy movie with great stunts.

This is the 21st Bond film.

The first 4 minutes were amazing. We are hit with a suspense filled stand off and then we get some of the greatest opening credits that i have ever seen.

One great scene after another. From a great chase in a construction site to great shootouts. Casino Royale leaves some other action movies jealous.

Great actors and actresses. Daniel Craig was great and Judi Dench was also great. The villain(Mads Mikkelsen)was great. He was what i call a calm evil. The Bond girl(Eva Green)was what brought out some of Bond's character. She actually had a purpose in this movie. Unlike some of the girls in movies today who are only there to bang the main character.

I recommend this even if you haven't seen a Bond movie before.

8/10
10/10
Daniel Craig resuscitates the Bond franchise with the best Bond movie since OHMSS in 1969
derek-eynon17 November 2006
Daniel Craig resuscitates the Bond franchise with the best Bond movie since OHMSS in 1969

(Not that George was the best Bond, but it was one of the best films, and closest to the book)

In one scene Bond walks through a wall , not a brick wall, a stud wall, but he doesn't go round it, he just goes through it. I think this is the key to the character, a return to the hard man Bond Connery portrayed so well.

He's not without charm but he's pretty much without morals.

The film jettisons Miss Moneypenny, and John Cleese's Q - successor , R

The only gadgets are electronics (laptops, mobiles, and a paramedic tool)

The film is character and plot driven, but with spectacular set pieces, coming in at two hours twenty four, it's long, but it does not seem so.
9/10
The start of a new rebooted era of James Bond films hits aces high.
tonypeacock-112 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Credible reboot of the long running franchise starring Daniel Craig that actually goes back to the original Ian Fleming source material and makes the Pierce Brosnan era welcome history in affect rebooting the franchise.

The film is more serious (no Q or Moneypenny characters, less gadget emphasis) but still has breathtaking action sequences that are less CGI and an improvement on its predecessor Die Another Day.

I remember when Craig was first cast the furore it caused amongst some Bond fans. They need not have worried to be fair.

Many memorable scenes from the novel are faithfully adapted but the card game in the Casino Royale is changed to Texas Hold'em Poker.

I rewatched the film at the end of the Daniel Craig era of Bond adventures.

It introduces a new era of Bond films with only Judi Dench returning as M. Confusing if I'm honest along with the new timeline that seems to disregard all the films and years of Bond cinema beforehand.

Where as each film in the past was a seperate entity in terms of plotline is Casino Royale the start of an arc of plot throughout the Craig era of films. Including the romantic relationship that develops with the character of Vesper (Eva Green)?
6/10
Better than the previous ones, but . . .
pfgpowell-19 August 2008
I hate to be a grumpy boots, but this Bond left me distinctly underwhelmed, despite reading of the plaudits awarded by other movie critics. In fact, I had given up on the Bond franchise years ago: I simply wasn't in the slightest entertained by the silly story lines, the leaden and very obvious puns, the improbable violence and and overall cartoonish feel to the films. In fact, I haven't even seen a Bond film with Dalton in it, only a few with Connery and only one with Roger Moore. Why watch this one? Well, the critics DID all say it was a leap forward and, anyway, my wife had bought it on DVD. So I settled into bed, switched on my laptop and was prepared to discover that true redemption is even possible in the tacky world of movie-making. Well, the good things first. Long gone, thank goodness, are the truly awful puns and the incessant. remorseless jokiness which always left me cold. Stylistically, the franchise had finally moved with the times and if nothing else the film, from the point of view of craftsmanship, is very well made. Daniel Craig is a very different Bond, though I, for one, still find it impossible to swallow the central Bond myth that 007 is 'licensed to kill' without which he is just another film hero. And I still remain unconvinced by the look Craig gives Bond - he might be togged up in a tux and all that, but he still looks as though he has just walked off the nearest building site. This Bond is no toff, and I always thought Bond was meant to be a toff. Well, there is plenty of action, though not a great deal makes that much sense and the chase sequences do go on a little too long. And then, just as I thought we were going to get an explanation for all the tooing and frooin - the film ends. What! Just what was going on? It was though we got only half a film. Perhaps I am no longer in the demographics at whom this kind of film is aimed. Perhaps I never was. All I can say is that as an actioner, this isn't half bad, but if you are looking for anything more - such as an intelligent, intelligble plot - look elsewhere. As for all the guff that Bond is a 'new man', a man who can get in touch with his feelings despite the expensive hardware he is given by MI6, all I can say is: who cares. First of all I want a proper story. Without that everything else is fluff and nonsense. Sorry.
9/10
Ian Fleming's James Bond
David Mills24 November 2006
Daniel Craig reinvigorates a fagged-out franchise that's been laying on bigger stunts and sillier gadgets to disguise the fact that it's run out of ideas. And he does it with an actor's skill, an athlete's grace and a dangerous glint that puts you on notice that Bond, James Bond, is back in business. This actor is made for this role he IS Bond, the Bond that Fleming envisioned 53 years ago. I wasn't with the Craig bashers a year ago, because Craig had already a fine status in both film and the theatre. However it was hard for me to believe that the producers could bring the Bond franchise back on track, well they did.

Dame Judi put her power on hold in the lightweight Brosnan films, but with Craig she comes out blazing, knowing she's found an actor who can give as good as he gets. And Eva Green ? She's far beyond any Bondgirl ever. She acts very well. A scene in which Bond and Vesper attempt to guess each other's past histories trumps its comic zing with romantic gravity.

The Craig bashers were afraid he would put their hero to his final death. It's the other way around. This actor would have Fleming's final blessings saying the words: "My name is Bond, James Bond".
9/10
instant bond classic
The James Bond franchise has been thrilling audiences for forty-five years and has grown to become the second most successful film series of all time ("Star Wars" is number one). Even though the last film, "Die another Day", was a formidable effort, most of the Pierce Brosnan Bond films clearly showed that Ian Fleming's creation was simply running out of steam. With "Casino Royale" Brosnan has been replaced with Daniel Craig, the sixth actor to officially portray the character, and he literally breathes new life into the iconic role, to the point of showing a dimensionality to the character rarely seen in the previous chapters. The film does feel like the result of a conscience effort to revamp the series, ala "Batman Begins", even in its similar presentation of it as a Bond movie prequel. The story introduces us to Bond in a pre-title teaser sequence far more raw and gritty than what the cycle of films has shown previously, as we find him earning his oft-mentioned license to kill. What follows is a much more straight-forward storyline than the usual contrived and convoluted tripe these things usually call a plot, possibly because it's the first one based on an Ian Fleming novel in twenty plus years, specifically the first Bond novel. It's contemporary Bond at his best, recalling several great moments from the original run with Sean Connery in the role (as well as containing a few cameos from those films), but standing well on its own with many unexpected, impressively choreographed sequences that feel more inevitable in the context of the story than is often the case. Craig has crafted Bond into more of an empathetic leading man than simply a large than life caricature, and there's an amazing range here that takes Bond from several poignant and intimate moments to moments of intense brutality. This is a James Bond film to over joy fans, and to gather up plenty of new fans.
7/10
Bond is, well, bond
wandereramor3 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not too familiar with the James Bond franchise, being one of those goddamn kids, so I probably went into this was the wrong expectations. All of the press for this movie is about how this is a darker, more mature and subdued version of Bond, all of which makes me really curious to see the other films to see what could make this dark and mature in comparison.

Casino Royale is less of a fluid whole and more of a set of loosely connected action set pieces: we start with a chase scene in Africa, move to the Caribbean where Bond thwarts some poorly-defined terrorists, then it's on to a high-stakes poker game, and then a final bout of betrayal while everyone checks their watch and wonders how much time is left in the movie.

And the action is pretty good, although completely over the top. The opening scene is especially inventive, and there's always a prevailing sense of tension -- even though we know, by virtue of the genre, that James Bond will survive and triumph, somehow the film makes us doubt it. The poker scenes will make anyone who knows the game spasm in their seat, but the tension is maintained effectively. Stylistically, it's very easy to respect Casino Royale.

At the same time, it's really not anything more than those action sequences -- the characters are flat repetitions of the same archetypes we've been seeing for 40+ years, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy. Of course, one doesn't go to a Bond movie for character depth, so in the end I have to give this a conditional thumbs up. It's a well-executed, mostly enjoyable blockbuster action movie, but not as sophisticated as the critics like to make it out.
8/10
A Riveting Adventure From Start to Finish
jaddison38312 April 2007
I have never seen a James Bond film before. I am by no means a fan, simply because I've never had the intense desire to. When this film was released, it got stellar reviews from all of my friends. I decided it was time to take a look at the series.

This movie was great.

This is the story of Special Agent James Bond on his first mission in his newly appointed '00' status. He is sent by M to capture La Chiffre, an illegal arms money dealer. Bond has no idea what he is in for. He faces every kind of problem imaginable, falls in love, and almost loses his life three times. Despite that, this movie was convincing and exciting the entire time.

Daniel Craig plays an excellent Bond. He puts together the perfect mixture of charm, wit, charisma, and cockiness which eventually almost destroys him. The other cast member who did a superb job was the immensely talented Judi Dench as the head of The Agency, M. She manages to keep it believable and never overplays a role that easily could have been. Instead she uses both tough and caring together to give a very nice performance.

Truly, it's most definitely a great movie, and probably one of the best of it's year. I only found one plothole, but in a movie of this kind that's to be expected. Only one plothole is actually impressive. This is a fun, riveting, and exciting adventure the whole way through. It's made a fan out of me. 7/10 stars!

Jay Addison
9/10
Best Bond in years; Would Recommend.
EthanBJones_0314 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
​Plot Overview: After foiling the plot of a bomber, MI6 discovers it was the word of Le Chifre(Mads Mikkelsen), a notorious banker for criminals, who set it up. They send newly appointed 00 agent, Jame Bond(Daniel Craig) to beat Le Chifre in a game of poker at Casino Royale.

Directed by Martin Campbell

Starring Daniel Craig, Mads Mikkelssen and Eva Green

# NO SPOILERS!

Overall: This movie is arguable the best Bond movie in years and stands on a pedestal of one of the best ever. It's a fun action movie, it a great thriller, the stakes feel real, it's a brilliant take on the famous character. Three things are needed for a good bond movie: Good Bond girl, good Bond car and good Bond villain. This movie smashes each of these out of the park and makes an inventive, unique and most importantly entertaining re imagining of the world's most famous spy, and introduces him back into the modern world.

The type of people who will like this movie will probably be long time fans of the franchise, people who wanted something new in the franchise and fans of great, kind of grounded action accompanied by an intriguing narrative.

Would Recommend.

# POSSIBLE SPOILERS!

Daniel Craig was amazing as James Bond and gave a new and refreshing take on the character which was needed. He kept the best qualities of Bond while also adding his unique spin on the character to make his version go down with the greats. Mads Mikkelsen was extraordinary as the cunning and intriguing Le Chiffre, and made the character one of my favourite Bond villains. Eva Green was good as Vesper Lynd and provided a great Bond girl who had an actual role in the full plot. Judi Dench was phenomenal as 'M'. Giancarlo Gianni was good as Mathis.

The story was surprisingly interesting and had enough substance to make it more than just a thread designed to keep a string of set pieces together. I think that the third act was pretty lazy and it could have been shortened down.

The cinematography was fine for the most part but the opening sequence in black and white was gorgeous and delivered arguably the most inventive spin on the 'Bond shoots camera' trope to date.

This movie provided a fresh and inventive take on such a beloved character, leaving just enough for fans to enjoy and changing just enough to gather new fans. The action scenes were excellent and the set pieces were just as good with the opening parkour sequence being up there with my favourite openings in the franchise. Provided a great Bond girl, car and villain. Three pieces that make the entire puzzle come together in one neat Bondifed package.

Craig's take on the Martini line may be my favourite thing in this movie just because it shows they are changing the franchise and also leaves enough nostalgia for fans to cling to. Well that and it is absolutely hilarious. The opening credits were amazing as well as the opening 'Bond shoots audience' trope. This movie definitely has one of the least interesting Bond songs just because it isn't memorable in any way. It's very dull and I guarantee that, without searching for it, you can't name the song and hum any part of it; it's that dull.

Personally, I adore this movie and it stands as one of my all time favourite Bond movies, and one of my favourite action movies of the 2000s.

9/10
10/10
Best Bond I've ever seen
timsteam723 November 2006
It's been one hour since the end-credits started rolling on the screen... It was at that very same moment when I realised, what I had just experienced... I have never enjoyed a Bond movie like I did just now.

The movie does feel a little odd in the beginning, since the (at this moment) last Bond is actually the beginning of 007, but Craig does manage to show the best Bond ever seen in the movies. This more sinister and sadistic movie, shows you what the world of 007 should be according to the books, although there of course are a few exceptions.

For me the movie has only one disadvantage... And that is NOT the long-lasting poker scene. Even that 'simple' game is thrilling in this movie! No the disadvantage is.... The ending! It feels like you just saw the first half of a story, not as bad as The Matrix: Reloaded though, but it certainly does get close!

However, the entire movie makes that little disadvantage fade away.... Melts like snow in the sun!

You really have to see this Bond, but hold on tight if you're still expecting a more 'Brosnan-like' Bond movie. This is a far more raw and dark story of a 00...
10/10
Excellent Bond Entry...
jmsfan19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, for those who doubted that Daniel Craig could do the job, doubt no more, for Bond lives again! Mind you, I'm a big Bond fan and love all the films (although some a little less than others) and, having seen Craig in a few films, felt he had the chops for Bond. But still, seeing is believing in the case of Bond and I must say that Craig is the toughest, most brutal James Bond yet. I didn't say best, because I'll always have my favorite, but Craig does the series, and Ian Fleming great justice in this outing.

Despite earlier reports, there are a few gadgets, although not in-your-face. Still, no Q, no double entendre female names (although Bond does tease the leading lady with a possible alias), but plenty of action and intrigue which are the hallmarks of the Bond series. Also you've got to have the mysterious bad guy, which this film does in Le Chiffre, played by Mads Mikkelsen with creepy intensity. The guy even has a weird eye affliction where he sometimes weeps a bloody tear. There's the Aston Martin--a Bond classic, even CIA counterpart Felix Leiter putting in an appearance.

The leading lady is played by Eva Green, and she is beautiful and beguiles Bond most effectively.

This movie is almost like a reboot of the series, but by now we've become accustomed to most of the particulars. In a way, it's like Dr. No, except much more action-filled, with Bond being one tough monkey you just don't mess with. Without giving away too much, there's a scene towards the end where Bond endures a form of torture that would have a lesser man crying like a schoolgirl, yet Bond laughs---laughs! in the face of his tormentor. Give me more of Craig. And this from a fan who wasn't ready for Brosnan to leave the series. Go see this, you won't be sorry. A must-buy when it's released on DVD.
8/10
Outstanding
waqassaleem-8520122 June 2021
If u love bond movies this movie is definitely a must watch for you. Amazing story and performances. I absolutely loved this film.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond 21: Bond reborn.
OttoVonB1 January 2007
After earning his 00 credentials (in a moody and electrifying Black and White prologue), James Bond (Daniel Craigh) follows the trail of terrorist banker Le Chiffre. When Bond thwarts his initial plan, Le Chiffre organizes a high stakes poker game in Casino Royale, Montenegro, to recuperate his money and pay back his terrorist clients before they kill him.

After all the controversy about Craigh, one finally has the chance to judge the film itself. Judging by audience reception, the world is finally ready for the darker, more human Bond tentatively experimented with during the Dalton years. Craigh's Bond begins as a ruthless killer, developing class, a heart and finally the first marks of his famed style during his first mission. The first thing any honest reviewer can do is remark on the actor's prowess in giving us arguably the best - certainly the most real and touching - Bond ever to grace the screen, or at least a fair match for Connery. He is at ease with both the warmth and the ruthlessness, the charming banter and cold threats, the character scenes and violent bursts of action, and conveys that rare sense that Bond actually evolves over the course of the film. His different relationships with women and his (often vicious) sparring with M (Judie Dench on top form and hogging many of the script's best lines) also add surprising layers to his character.

After introducing the new Bond, Casino Royale kicks off with the dangerously addictive title song "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell. It then proceeds to present Le Chiffre, daring to hint at a larger organization behind our villain. An opening African free ruining scene will leave the audience breathless, as will a demented airport confrontation. The film also has the virtue of giving us a villain fighting to save his life, for whom the stakes are just as high as they are for Bond, which brings us to section 2 of the film: the poker tournament.

The second half of the film is slower, yet by no means lesser. Though the poker game has its moments and is inter-spaced with nasty assassination attempts, its chief merit is in the chemistry between Bond and Eva Green's Vesper Lyndt. Whether Green is the sexiest woman ever to play a Bond girl is a matter for the message boards (and likely not the case) but she certainly is the best actress to face 007. What's more, their relationship manages to attain depth and be touching without forsaking the usual sparks that should mark a Bond romance. Ultimately it completely convinces us in the profound effect it will leave on Bond as he will become in the future.

The ending might feel abrupt to some, since it slightly pales in contrast to the unusually excellent film that precedes it. It serves as a reminder that this is merely a beginning. That it is such a stunning, moving and energetic one should delight viewers. Hopefully the level of quality attained here will be the standard for following 007 adventures and mark Craigh's era as the definitive years of the Bond saga.

Rousing entertainment. A must-see.
2/10
Not a James Bond movie
bsoriano14 March 2007
I was so upset last niter after buying this movie that I wish I owned a shrink wrap machine. I own all the Bods and have since VHS. I grew up with them. Even the Non-Bond series Never Say Never was a Bond film. OK - Here is the requirement for a Bond film

Amazing action in the opening credits, followed by incredible titles and a killer new theme song to set the mood.

Tons of beautiful women and a stretch from the Flemming book but the idea that he may have written a few pages.

Ian Flemming really wrote Casino Royale. They promised to be loyal to the book. I have waited to see a real Flemming book dramatized. No hope left.

I like Daniel Craig, not here. No charm. He did run his ass off. No gadgets. If you want to say it is the first movie, then go back. Not forward. If he got there from here, go back.

The story was written in ten minutes at lunch. No thought. 2006 items in a post WII plot, don't make it better, made it unwatchable.

I hate to write bad reviews unless they are merited. I bought this movie based on the 10 out of ten star reviews. Somehow the 1 and 2 stars were buried.

It's time to say Never Again.
10/10
What else is there to say except well donw to everyone especially Daniel Craig
strtmanadammac11 July 2007
The film Casino Royale is the first book in the James Bond Novel series and I always knew that adapting it into an excellent film would mean tireless efforts on the script.

It paid off handsomely for the following reasons.

1. Bond. New Bond. Pierce Brosnan was an abhorrent Bond who was too in love with himself, far too smooth plus he was not tough enough when it came to the action scenes. Daniel Craig is excellent. His acting style is smooth with the women tough with the enemy and unlike Brosnan, he tried to be as much like Bond as he possibly could, just like Sean Connery.

2. Plot. Superb. From the opening scene to the twisted finish I was drawn in by the storyline which was believable in any retrospect because it is what 007 does after all; prevent the villains from having a god time. Le Chiffre is excellent as Bond's arch nemesis and Bond's task of preventing him winning the money from gambling is unbeatable.

3. Direction. Brilliant. Martin Campbell adds some good old originality to this movie and it won't be forgotten for years to come. He also did an excellent job making the action scenes as real as possible.

All in all, the best film of the Bond series and definitely the best Bond yet.
6/10
Not the typical 'Bond' style. Perhaps on purpose?
etsm9222 November 2006
Casino Royale/2006/**1/2

Main Stars: Daniel Craig Eva Green Mads Mikkelsen

When it comes to James Bond, of which I am a huge fan, I expect Bond to be the typical dark-haired/eyed, suave, charming, petite Bond. Daniel Craig is the blond-haired, blue-eyed, gritty, tough guy Bond. Do I prefer the dark, don't-touch-the-hair Bond? Or the light, gritty Bond? Well I prefer the dark. Sean Connery is obviously the best Bond there is by far. But Craig shows a little more realism. He's not afraid to get down and dirty… in more than just one thing too. Yes, the other Bonds are strong obviously but you never see them bleed nor sweat; or at least it's rare when you see that. However, Bond should be the mysterious one, who never has one hair out of place. You shouldn't see him getting hurt! No, no, no, that's all too real! Bond is supposed to be "cartoony" and fake. That's what makes Bond interesting. Yes, I love realistic films, but when it comes to Bond I expect a cartoon with gadgetry and charm. This had a bunch of explosions and deaths and card games. Goldfinger, which is the BEST James Bond film by far, is a cartoon practically with fake acting and gadgets but not TOO many explosions or boring parts. Casino Royale is just the opposite; too many explosions and too many boring parts which would be the card games. That's why the movie is two and a half hours long. Half is card games. A lot are explosions. However, the rest would be some interesting talk here and there. The talk was entertaining because of the words and actions James used. I didn't say Daniel Craig was bad as Bond, but I didn't say he was good either. Remember the dark is better. Perhaps there might be a reason why Bond isn't as good as he is in the other films. Remember this is the first novel of the Bond series. Casino Royale was the first novel Ian Fleming (creator and author of the James Bond series) wrote for the series. So maybe James Bond is not SUPPOSED to be good yet. He is STARTING to LEARN how to be the Bond he should be; meaning the classic Bond. However, this is set in modern times and not all the way back in the 60s. Who knows what the filmmakers wanted? But Craig DID do a good job. The MAIN reason why I gave this "a bit of a disappointment" rating is because the movie itself didn't have a very good story. I was expecting a great story followed by the acting, action, and obviously what Bond does best. But I only received three out of the four. I didn't receive an exciting story. Usually Bond stories are a little cliché, I have to admit. But this one was mainly about this man named Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who needs to win money at a casino in order to fund terrorist activities. Bond is aided by an accountant named Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) whom 'M' places as her watchful eye on Bond to make sure he doesn't go out of control, and also just in case Bond needs help. They start a bit of a relationship during the movie. At the casino, Le Chiffre plays obviously Bond and a couple other no names. The card games weren't exciting, because they were longwinded, and I really didn't care. The only thing you're supposed to care about is Bond winning so that this evil guy won't fund terrorism. And if Bond wins, Le Chiffre's organization will be destroyed. Does he win? What happens to the evil man? But, in the movie, it kinda shows the guy is PRESSURED to win. He gets strangled by someone who really wants the money. Afterward, he cries, and instead of crying tears, he cries BLOOD! Isn't that terrible? I would definitely not wanna cry knowing that blood would run down my face a couple seconds later. That was an interesting part in the movie also, and, I have to admit, the guy DID play his part well. But as I told you before the story was a bit lame and not original. Anyone could think that this guy needs money in order to fund something. Kinda obvious when you think about it. I can't fund anything without money. Thank you, Captain Obvious! Movie directed by Martin Campbell.
10/10
One of the best movies ever made
jasonparkers28 September 2021
This isn't just a bond film. It's a great character study. A masterpiece in filmmaking and screenplay structure. A great origin story with superb cinematography and direction. I watch pieces of this film every week and quote lines from it randomly. Sadly they don't make movies like this anymore.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An Honest Review
generationofswine3 November 2020
It honestly wasn't bad and I really hate Daniel Craig as James Bond, he seems to be the only person on earth that does NOT want to be James Bond. And it kind of sucks watching someone play Bond that doesn't look like he wants to be there.

And then there is the fact that they rebooted the franchise, and I am not a fan of that either.

And, well, the film had 3 endings didn't it? I mean, literally there were two natural endings but they milked it for a third one. So by the time you get around to ending three you're screaming "enough already!"

However, it started strong. I mean, it started REALLY strong even for a reboot. And it made the clever move of keeping the same M, and that helped stop the people like me that hate reboots from grumbling too much.

It did away with Q and the over-the-top gadgets and, yeah, Python Q wasn't good plus every Bond has his own feel.

So what was left was a solid action movie with mostly great acting (especially from the Villains) that was great... up until it SHOULD have ended the first time.
5/10
The names?
Paddywelshman17 November 2006
First off – Bond is back! But it's different Bond, a meaner more modern Bond.

Let's start from the beginning. I like Bond movies some have been questionable especially if they have the words Rodger Moore in the credits but the essence of the character was there. The music, the opening sequence, the girls and especially the MUSIC! What where the producers thinking by having such a rubbish theme tune and the opening title though well done convinced me I wasn't watching a Bond film.

I don't want to go into the film much but the plot was questionable and in my eyes ripped off the good bits On Her Majesties Secret Service – My personal favourite.

It was half an hour too long and apart from Bond the rest of the characters where wooden – like a large forest.

The opening sequence was OK but not as good as the crane scenes - Sebastien Foucan was excellent. The poker scenes where well shot and held suspense and the fight scenes where brutally realistic – this is something I think Bond has always lacked So DANIEL CRAIG? In one word brilliant he saved for me what was turning into a run of the mill Bourne Identity rip off. Given the chance he will be a great Bond perhaps even give Sean a run. He played it well but just didn't seem to nail it. I don't blame him though I blame the watery script. It was apparent that from day one the producers where so happy slapping each others backs about netting Daniel that they didn't take care off him. Look at the shambles of a press conference they put him through – that put him on the back foot and it was up hill from then on. All their fault! Oh yeah – this 2hr odd advert didn't impress me either. There should be some law about jamming product placement down an audiences throat.

It was Bond but it didn't feel like it. I'm honestly not sure whether I liked it or not. But if I'm honest I left the cinema more disappointed than happy.

I hope the next ones better – come on Producers.
9/10
Outstanding new direction
mnpollio2 April 2007
I freely admit that I was a naysayer on getting my initial gander at Daniel Craig as 007, but when I finally relented to see the new take on the series that essays James Bond's first mission as a 007 agent, I was more than pleasantly surprised and rank this as one of the very best in the series.

Bond: The blond Craig looks all wrong for the part. With his rugged, overly craggy looks, he seems more like a rugby player or a bouncer rather than the sophisticated icon of the Bond series. However, he has the correct forceful personality to sell the role. He has Connery's hard edge and dry humor, plus there is a surprising vulnerability to his approach as an "unpolished" Bond that makes him both more grounded and accessible than his predecessors. His off-kilter looks actually enhance the film's approach of an upstart rougher Bond. I am also hard-pressed to remember a prior Bond who could so memorably fill out a pair of tight speedos so nicely.

The villain: Mads Mikkelson's Le Chiffre is rather a weak villain. Despite his intense glares and a rather nasty torture sequence, he never truly seems too much of an obstacle to Bond. Oddly, whereas most Bond films rise and fall on the strength of their villains, Casino Royale becomes a rarity in that it succeeds admirably in spite of a forgettable villain.

The woman: Eva Green gets one of the best introduction lines in the series. She spends her first few moments sizing up Craig's Bond and cutting him down to size before entering into a refreshing back-and-forth banter for the remainder of the film. She is lovely and grounds her character so that not only does she seem believable, but you can nearly understand why Bond falls so passionately for her. It is one of the more intriguing female roles in the series.

The screenplay, which remains largely faithful to Ian Fleming's novel, is one of its strong points. The central action centers on a high stakes poker game in the title spot in Montenegro where Bond must prevent the villain from winning the pot to finance terrorism. While it seems a somewhat mundane conceit, the film is expertly paced - balanced well between slam-bang action sequences, headier dialog-driven moments and a rather affecting romance. Judi Dench is inexplicably back as M, but she provides a nice note of consistency in an otherwise completely new direction for the series. The locations are beautiful and the leads share a particularly strong chemistry which helps sell the final third. The black-and-white opening is eye-catching and the silhouettes of naked gyrating women have been abandoned in favor of an action motif. Chris Cornell's title song seems more grunge rock than "Bond", but is a new and distinct improvement over the last few "wailing diva" debacles. A grand start for Craig's Bond - I look forward to more.
10/10
Finally...
hadeln24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Go and see the movie. Craig is fantastic. Absolutely believable. I liked the mood of the film tremendously. Still On Her Majesty's Secret Service is my favorite. Can't wait for bond 22. Liked: Craig-Green-Dench-Mads-Giancarlo-DB 5-The ingredients for the drink-Closeness to the novel-Campbell-The score-Lamont-The locations Disliked: Theme song-Jürgen Tarrach-The omega dialog-no Heineken-what happened to Eva- My background: I'm a bond fan since Moonraker even if i don't like the film anymore. Dr.No-From Russia- Ohmss- Live and let die-The living daylights and now Casino Royale are my favorite bond movies. I think Connery/Lazenby/ Dalton/Craig are all very good. Connery first and Craig second. I didn't like Pierce very much and Moore--Well i grew up with him but when i watch his films now (with the exception of live and let die) i find them awkward. So again go and see Casino Royale with Daniel Craig.
7/10
No no, Peter Sellers and David Niven are not in this one ...
CelluloidRehab19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the first book of the James Bond series, written by Ian Flemming. This is the second movie adaptation with the same name (the first being a comedy, see 1967). Daniel Craig of Layer Cake fame is now James Bond. First of all I would like to clear the air of my experience with the Bond franchise. With the exception of License to Kill, the Bond franchise has been rather campy and over-the-top (a perfect entertainment vehicle). I have never really taken the franchise seriously, simply because it didn't seem to take itself too seriously. Bond had become synonymous with gadgets, girls, cars, over the top stunts, one liners, unbelievable plots and the now stereotypical nemeses (usually with a crazy looking/acting henchman, crazy conspiracy theory to take over the world, crazy built in timer doomsday devices, etc,etc.). License to Kill stands as my favorite James Bond movie, with the much underrated and often maligned Timothy Daulton. He was much different then the others. He had a certain mix of youth, emotion, athleticism, charisma, and suave, mixed in a very good proportion. He could be happy, sad, angry, confident, sexy, etc. Bond tended to be very one dimensional usually (with some exceptions, namely in License to Kill and On Her Majesty's Secret Service).

Sean Connery is still my favorite and tops my list. Daniel Craig is now second (his stock will rise if he keeps this up maybe giving Sir Connery a challenge in the top spot), with Daulton coming in third. Roger Moore picks up the next spot. Aussie George Lazenby is next followed by my all-time most reviled bond, Pierce Brosnan. After the despicable Brosnan Bond movies, the franchise had gone the way of Star Trek, namely into the gutter. The series need a serious dose of adrenalin and a good stiff, shock from a heart defibrillator.

What is the best way to administer the above? Simple. Clinical death followed by a new miraculous lease on life. Kill off Bond and start fresh. Forget the previous 20 something movies. Daniel Craig is Bond. Being that this is Fleming's first book, this is also the origin of Bond : How did Bond get his double 0 moniker and his first assignment as full agent. If you haven't seen it, please go watch Layer Cake. I cannot say enough about that movie and it's influence on this one. Daniel Craig is a youthful, prideful, supremely confident, athletic, suave, and yet slightly cockney James Bond. It is like looking at your college pictures. There are certain things you would like to change, but can't because you wouldn't be here without all those experiences. The same thing goes for Bond. He actually evolves during the movie. Craig's Bond isn't the always cool Connery, or the never sweats Moore, or even the bad one-liners of Brosnan. He is a real person, or as close to one as you can get from such a well known and fictional character. You actually feel like Craig can actually be James Bond, something the Brosnan never did for me (I always felt like he was playing a role and playing it apathetically).

Now to the plot. More realism and less campy is definitely the goal of this movie. There is no crazy megalomaniac boss at the top, but lots of little bosses all with not-so-grand schemes. This usually just involves promoting terror or making money. James Bond, after getting his 00 license to kill, turns a bit into Shelock Holmes and discovers a hornet's nest in the Bahamas. This all eventually leads him to Montenegro and a poker match at the Casino Royale, where the stakes are much higher then the $10 million buy in.

The movie seems to take notes from other "realistic" action movies (the Bourne series anyone). The opening sequence, with the chasing of the "burned" assassin is clearly a note to Banlieue 13. The assassin is Sébastien Foucan, a co-founder of Parkour along with David Belle (Leito from Banlieue 13). The fighting is also much more graphic and intense (thank you so much, Tony Jaa). Also Bond seems to rely less on his gadgets, which is good. He's no Batman, he's an agent of MI6. Even the series dependence on crazy cars and chase sequences is diminished. James doesn't actually use cars much, except to get from point a to b, and actually crashes his very nice and expensive sports car after only using the defibrillator (interesting mirroring metaphor to the franchise). There are fewer Bond girls as well. Only two (Eva Green and Caterina Murino) in this movie, which is not a bad thing, and actually allows for some character development.

The movie itself seemed to also take homage from within. Casino Royale seems to amalgamate the two aforementioned On Her Majesty's Secret Service (which goes into details about how Bond falls in love for the only time, plans to quit and his love interest is killed by one of his nemesis) and License to Kill (in which Bond goes AWOL on a personal vendetta against a drug lord who fed his CIA buddy, Felix, to a shark). This is not a perfect movie, but it does mark a new beginning. I didn't like a few things. First of all the product placement was ghastly. Thank you so much Sony for hedging your products into the plot to the point of distraction. Secondly, the love/betrayal/love plot between James and Vesper was a tad predictable. Also the inclusion of poker over Bond's preferred Baccarat was an interest sign of the times. It's nice to see Bond still prefers Bollinger and martini's (though he hasn't really picked how he wants it prepare yet). Of interest also note one of the funniest and equally cringing torture scenes ever. Anyway, this was a highly enjoyable movie, one of the best in the franchise and a great new beginning. I eagerly anticipate Bond 22 - Coming Soon.
10/10
An new Bond ... thank god!
Charmed720216 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely AWESOME!!!! Daniel Craig will now be known as THE Bond (probably besides Sean Connery)...he's a super actor, he's sexy, he's tough and he's confident - all the makings of an unbelievable career as 007. We see what makes Bond who he is - the good and the bad ... the Aston Martin, the Martini, the women ... Old fans of the Bond franchise will relish the new life breathed into this character. Not to mention the slew of new fans that will emerge. Eva Green as Bond's girl is perfect! Not only is she beautiful, but she's intelligent and his equal in all ways. The banter between them at the beginning is wonderful and it continues all the way to the shocking ending. Fantastic and wonderful ... not much else to say really. Go see it!!!
10/10
"Shaken or Stirred?"
alexander-jacobs26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finally! A Bond film that isn't a parody of itself! out with the gadgets and in with good acting, interesting plot and sweet action! Daniel Craig is James Blond....I mean Bond, and he is one of the best Bonds ever, and he has to win a high-stakes poker game set up at Casino Royale, during the game he will get poisoned, attacked and still he manages to think up a few good comebacks.

It's also quite funny to see how he reacts to things in this installement in this long running franchise...

Bartender: Shaken or Stirred?

Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?
10/10
"I Have No Armor Left. You've Stripped It From Me. Whatever Is Left Of Me…Whatever I Am…I'm Yours." --- James Bond (Daniel Craig)
Robert_Hearth14 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" (2006)

By: Martin Campbell

Starring: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Judi Dench, Mads Mikkelsen, Caterina Murino, Jeffrey Wright, Ivana Milicevic, & Giancarlo Giannini

MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, sexual content and nudity)

My first experience with James Bond was with the 1995 classic, "GoldenEye". From that moment on, I was absolutely hooked with the suave secret agent and the array of interesting characters that surrounded him, from Moneypenny to M. Because this was my first Bond film, I have always felt that Pierce Brosnan was one of the best actors to have ever gotten the role (behind only Sean Connery and equal to Roger Moore). So, when it was announced that Brosnan would not be returning for a sixth film (after "Die Another Day" in 2002), I was quite disappointed...but yet interested to see who would be cast. After a long search for the new Bond (with Clive Owen as a fan favorite), it was announced that Daniel Craig would portray 007 in the twenty-first installment in the amazingly successful Bond franchise. Some fans were outraged, some were unsure, some were just glad the search was over, and I was one of the few that were rather indifferent to the decision. I knew that Craig was a great actor, but was he the right actor to play Bond? I wasn't sure, but I was willing to give him a chance. Well, having seen his first Bond film, "Casino Royale", I can say that Craig WAS right for the role. In fact, Craig brings something new to the role: a certain roughness that seems to make Bond more realistic and more fulfilling than any other.

After receiving his license to kill, James Bond 007 (Craig) is sent on a mission to Madagascar to track down a known terrorist. Things do not go as planned the mission is compromised. Bond goes to the Bahamas to investigate independently of MI6 and encounters Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian) and his beautiful girlfriend, Solange (Murino). He discovers that Dimitrios is linked to Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), banker to the world's terrorists, who is planning a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro at Le Casino Royale. MI6 agrees to stake Bond in the game, with hopes that Bond will win and Le Chiffre's organization will be destroyed. Placed under the watchful eye of the beautiful Vesper Lynd (Green), Bond is at first skeptical of what the accountant has to offer, but, as they face violence and torture together, Bond discovers that Vesper is far more valuable than he originally thought. As the stakes in the game are raised above blood money, "Casino Royale" builds up to a an exciting, chilling climax.

If you will remember, "Die Another Day" suffered from one major problem: the overuse of gadgets. In just one movie, we had an invisible car, a ring that could shatter glass (how convenient), cell phone bombs, hovercrafts, the world's fastest vehicle, and so much more. Bond was overshadowed by the gadgets and it seemed as though he lacked any reason whatsoever to use his intelligence, because a nifty gadget could get him out of trouble almost instantly. In "Casino Royale", there are no gadgets and the film returns to the very basics of the Bond franchise. Bond must use his brain and his brawn to survive and, even then, it is not an easy ride. Bond bleeds…and bleeds a lot. He isn't some flawless, superhuman agent anymore and that is a wonderful thing. Daniel Craig's Bond is a throwback to the days of Sean Connery and is a refreshing blast of fresh air from "Die Another Day", which was, in my opinion, a little too clean-cut and pretty.

Daniel Craig managed to equal Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, in my book, and is only slightly behind Sean Connery. With a few more movies and more room to grow, Craig may very well surpass Connery. As this is a "reboot" of the entire franchise, Craig was allowed to interpret the character how he chose to do so without having to concern himself with how his predecessors took on the part. Overall, "Casino Royale" is an amazing movie--one of the top Bond films ever and every individual aspect seemed to come together beautifully. The performances, especially from Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, and Judi Dench, are flawless and deeply engaging. The pacing is nearly flawless with only a few moments that seem to remain stagnant. Martin Campbell's direction is clear and vivid without being overly-stylized. This movie is a must-see and one of the year's best action films. For fans of James Bond, this is a movie that you cannot miss in theaters.

Final Thought: "Casino Royale" will have Bond fans and audiences in general applauding. Daniel Craig is here to stay.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (A+)
8/10
Possibly the best Bond film yet...
cherootvendors20 November 2006
For those of you weighing up whether or not to see this film, I am a great, great fan of James Bond films and heartily recommend this film. In fact, I can only think of two negative points to the movie: the title tune (which is appalling) and a scene in which Bond has a convenient gadget in his glove compartment which has echoes of the old 60s Batman TV show.

Reasons for watching this film:

1. Not only does Daniel Craig meet the demands of the role, he arguably does as well as Connery in the role.

2. The action sequences are unbelievable, and the fight scenes are realistic.

3. Bond has more depth here than in any other Bond film since OHMSS.

4. The chemistry between Craig and Eva Green is believable and gripping.

Some people are going to hate this film, but if you like OHMSS you are quite likely to enjoy this.
10/10
Very Good
emmareid5224 November 2006
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I think Daniel Craig was wonderful and the plot was great. This in my opinion was one of the best Bond Movies ever made. The typical Bond set-up but it was great. It was interesting to see the difference between the actors who have played Bond over the years and Daniel Craig who was a good choice. The baddie was excellent. I will definitely be buying this on DVD as soon as it comes out. I recommend other people to think about watching this film. It was amazing. It was similar to a few other James Bonds but it the special effects were brilliant! As the story develops it becomes more cloudy but everything is revealed at end. I think everyone should see this film.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
You have to see it!You'll get used to Daniel Craig as James Bond
slwepen25 November 2006
After all the controversy and comments on Daniel Craig's potential as an actor and doubts over him playing James Bond.He is at least better than Roger Moore and maybe better than Pierce Brosnan.We must accept this new bond.He deserve compliments and a new role in the next James Bond movie.He will play in the next currently on the working title ''James Bond 22''.This movie shows Bond movies don't need gadgets or something.Daniel Craig has only this role so we cant compare with other Bond movies.He has the James Bond character and the Bond humor but not the bond looks but Roger Moore doesn't have to looks and doesn't have the character.He has also more respect for women like Sean Connery for example.Everything talk about Sean Connery but he isn't the prototype he is only the first James Bond actor and he place in an other epoch in other movies so you cant compare him with Sean Connery.He is self-willed,humoristic,and cool.He has a more beautiful body but a less beautiful face.I actually accustom to this actor in a minute.Its also a cinema movie like every James Bond.Take the opportunity at the cinema.I don't miss the gadgets like a explosive pen or something.But or course the gadgets are a great James Bond item.We actually can judge or deem Daniel Craig if he plays the second Bond movie but I judge like everyone.I like adaptations in the story for example they talk about 9/11 in the movie which makes the story more understood and more recent.I want to see this movie many times more because the actions are amazing.The stunts are amazing and the whole storyline is understood more than other movie such as Goldeneye and The World is Noy enough.I saw the Dutch premiere 11/23 which makes more special to.There was also a dramatic moment at the last few minutes.And at moment he said like always My name is Bond,James Bond, which is a tradition.It's not the best movie I have ever seen but you must see it!James Bond is not a robot and not immortal.He is a person, a human and or course a womanizer, but with respect for women.Mads Mikkelsen is a great actor he plays la Chiffre and looks like a bastard and looks scary.I give it 8/10.
8/10
21st Century Bond
jodum28 November 2006
I began reading Fleming's Bond series in 1959 when I was 14 and could not wait until the next book was released. I read them more or less in order, beginning with Casino Royale, written in 1953. "Dr. No" and "From Russia with Love" were adequate representations of the novels and Connery was an excellent choice for Bond. "Goldfinger" was a thrill ride (I was 18 when it was released). "Thunderball" moved back towards adequate.

When Roger Moore (known around the trade as a 'clothes horse')appeared, I dropped out and didn't really get back into enjoying Bond until Pierce Brosnon reclaimed some of the aloof and sexy mysteriousness of Connery's and Fleming's original.

Still, all the Bonds prior to Craig were - in my mind - a little too polished and sophisticated, as if they had know luxury all their lives. Fleming's Bond was from a scruffier beginning, had a harder edge, and had discovered on his own, the luxuries he enjoyed. Craig's extemporaneous drink order at the casino table was Fleming's idea of who Bond is. The drink was made up on the spot, but Bond said later in the film, he liked it. Craig, except for a nit about hair color, is as close to my idea of Fleming's Bond as any to-date.

The music was the usual over-the-top - I wish they'd just stay with the background theme. As for the plot... well, beyond the early films in the series, Bond directors have never shown much interest in the actual Fleming plots and why should they start now? The original post WWII plots do need some revamping in light of changing world events and trends, but the basic Fleming was good enough for the books and should I think - if ever done - would make pretty good Bond movies. I was grateful for the dispatch of Q and the hackneyed, unrealistic tools of the trade from past Bond films. This one had a few gadgets but mostly real technology.

As Bond goes into the future, lets hope he gets back to the basics and entertains more.

At a dinner party the day after we saw the film, my other half and her lady friends were talking in conspiratorial tones over dessert about the "new Bond" and his wonderful physique.

Let's hope Craig stays around for a while as a Bond for the new century. I think Fleming would have been pleased with this one.
8/10
Actor Daniel Craig assumes the role of 007.
khanbaliq26 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
MI6 dispatches James Bond (Daniel Craig) to track down and destroy Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a villainous banker to terrorist organisations. The chase continues over three continents. The casting for the film involved a widespread search for a new actor to portray James Bond, and significant controversy over Daniel Craig, when he was eventually selected.

Casino Royale is the best Bond film since Sean Connery quit the role, with Craig a saviour of a tired franchise that creatively had long overstayed its welcome. It jettisons the infantilism and flippancy that dogged Bond films for years, and restores a welcome touch of cruelty and toughness. A ruthless, stripped-down, modern Bond, Craig rises above the role's stereotypical traps. The script is coherent while finding room for splendid stunt-driven set-pieces, notably a chase on a construction site. The opening scene, a bloody murder in a public lavatory, sets the mood; a grim torture scene confirms this is neither for kids nor for the squeamish. Here's a Bond film that Ian Fleming might have enjoyed.
9/10
Bond against the world...
sinncross1 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With 20 titles before, Casino Royale, the first James Bond novel has quite a legacy to live up to – though it originally sets the tone - and Daniel Craig, deemed unworthy by most including myself, has quite a challenge to dethrone the likes of Connery and Brosnan. To put it bluntly, Casino Royale will easily surpass everyone's expectations – even Daniel Craig is worthy of the Bond name.

Casino Royale tells the story of a newly appointed double-O agent, James Bond. While his first official mission as 007, Bond travels to Madagascar to spy on an infamous terrorist by the name of Mollaka. While here, he discovers the involvement of Le Chiffre, who is a terrorist financier. Le Chiffre has lost all his employers money, and has to get it back: a high-stakes poker game at Montenegro's Casino Royale, which he arranges, becomes his very means to win all the money he lost. If Le Chiffre loses, he'll be at the wrong end of his employer's wrath; Bond must win so as to tempt Le Chiffre into getting sanctuary in England, where MI6 could then possibly extract vital information from Le Chiffre, with his safety in return.

Casino Royale's story is elaborate enough to keep viewers interested; it's not merely about a terrorist syndicate, but the impending romance story between Bond and, ally, Vesper Lynd. While not a reader of the James Bond novels, I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the film, but its best to see both the novels and films as two different entities, still Casino Royale has one of the more intense stories in James Bond history. Sadly, it lingers on for a little too long as a result of romantic flairs between Bond and Vesper. Also the traditional opening sequence, with accompanying theme song: 'You Know my Name' – Chris Cornell, is a visual feast of stylised cartoon-like animations (albeit the female silhouettes) which left my skin cold – absolutely brilliant. The ending is just as exceptional, especially since it's the only scene that truly is James Bond.

Acting is exceedingly good for a James Bond title. Daniel Craig excels as both pre-James Bond, and James Bond. However, he only does so because of the grittier Bond who the viewer is exposed too – he's willing to get his hands dirty with hand-to-hand killing if necessary, and Craig suits this. If Brosnan had been recast, he would seem out of sorts in this film. Eva Green (Vesper Lynd) is a great aid to Craig and their flirting is easily chemistry in motion. Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre) acts well enough to allow for friction between Daniel Craig ( James Bond) and himself – the poker scenes should be noted. Lesser roles such as Judi Dench (M) and Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter) yield fine support acting, which really brings the Bond universe to life.

Complimenting the acting is some awesome action sequences. Casino Royale sports not only some of the best action seen in a James Bond title, but also in cinema in general. Every scene is dynamic, and you'll be able to feel the intensity, especially at a certain torture scene. However, there seems to be too much chasing, none with car mined you, and not enough firefights, but this isn't a distraction to the overall performance of the movie as a whole. But while exciting actions scenes are always popular, that doesn't make them the better scenes in the film – the shower scene involving a distraught Vesper is simply masterful.

However the film is not without its faults: the film drags on a little too long in areas, and the flowing pace becomes noticeably disrupted. There's a lack of the expected gadget repertoire of Bond's, and his newly fashioned Aston Martin DBS spends mere minutes on screen till dismally destroyed into nothingness. Perhaps the biggest problem I had with Casino Royale was that at times I had to remind myself that this was a James Bond movie. The overall feeling is akin to that of Mission Impossible and the Bourne series, and I couldn't help but feel that Casino Royale seems to be playing a following act, while tying to reinvent the James Bond series.

Nevertheless, all those non-believers must believe! Casino Royale galvanises a series which many thought was becoming single minded in its approach, and while it doesn't separate itself from the crowd, Casino Royale is by far one of the best spy flicks to date. Yes, it has its fair share of problems, but none are extreme enough to make big enough dents to hinder what is an overall exciting film, that easily stands on its own two feet when judged against its predecessors.

So is Casino Royale the best Bond ever? It deserves such praise. And is Daniel Craig the best Bond ever? Well, he pulls the film through in a truly debonair manner.
Daniel Craig puts Brosnan to shame...this IS James Bond at its finest
Ooh_Mr_Todd26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I am not a hardcore Bond fan. I do not pretend to be. My friends dragged me to "Die Another Day" and frankly, I found Brosnan to be a pretty boy and a pretty face, not the dimensional character that I want my action heroes to be. Craig is the dimensional figure that I've been waiting for in an action film.

This movie is possibly the best Bond movie since the works of Sean Connery. Craig's Bond is gritty, sophisticated, cruel, sadistic, suave, gentle, vulnerable and human, all at the same time. He brings "it" to the Bond character. *SPOILER ALERT!!!!! SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!* The scene where he holds Vesper in the shower shows his emotional, caring side, and subtly alludes to the fact that he just might be falling in love with her (Notice how it doesn't turn into a sex scene or make out session, which is what WOULD have happened in a Brosnan film.)

This movie is everything I could hope for in a Bond film, and then some.
9/10
I Bite My Tongue!
p_snape8723 November 2006
So I went and saw this film on Tuesday and it blew me out of the water! I have been a long time fan of Bond and when I heard that Daniel Craig was the next Bon, I like every other Bond fan, wrote the movie off immediately. My friends, also Bond fans, talked me into going to see it. From the very opening I new this was no normal Bond film. I don't want to give ANY spoilers so I will talk about the film in generalities.

Is this Sean Connery's Bond? No. Is this Pierce Brosnan's Bond? No. This is Daniel Craig's Bond. Is this good? Absolutely! Although my friends argue that the Bond franchise was never in trouble, it was. And I believe that this film, thanks to Craig, has been saved. Let me say, I don't think Brosnan could have done this movie. THis was a raw movie, and Craig played the perfect bad ass Bond.

I was happy with the entire film, the only thing that I did miss was OO7's visit to Q-Lab. There are no tongue-in-cheek comments that seemed to plague previous movies. There were a few lines that Craig nailed as a perfect Bond response.

The action is rough and brutal. There are no Judo chops in this film. All the hits are hard. The plot is believable and there are even a few twists along the way. Above all, this is an action movie and it delivers. The thing I like best about this film, is that you don't really know when it is taking place. There is a lot of speculations about this. I will guess that it is post-Brosnan and Craig is an incoming OO. This is something that we have never seen before. The thing I love is that we get to see Craig develop his OO7. His drink, his look, and even his signature phrase, "Bond, James Bond."

I bite my tongue for ever doubting Craig. The end of this movie leaves you wanting more and if EON can deliver big the next time around, then Bond is definitely back!

Go out and see this movie!

OO7
9/10
A Story Telling Masterpiece...
xboy61431 March 2013
Many people felt discouraged when Daniel Craig was declared the sixth actor to wear the tuxedo. The five men before him, Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan seemed to have gained the critics and Bond-fans respect far easier and quicker then the first Blonde Bond. The people who grumbled and moaned about the new Bond had to be proved wrong by the first Craig film coming out in 2006, Casino Royale. Let's just say, anyone who had any doubts about Daniel Craig's performance was proved wrong as soon as the pre-titles started. Craig is Bond, he doesn't need to look like Sean Connery to prove that. I think the important factor is that Craig wasn't trying to be another Bond. He didn't try to be Connery or try to be Dalton, he tried to be Fleming's Bond with a mixture of his own style in it. Keeping away from spoilers here, Q or Moneypenny do not appear in this movie, Bond doesn't have any gadgets, any awesome cars with machine guns hidden in the boot. What the producers, Barabra Broccoli and Michael G Wilson is saying is that these things do not make a Bond film. You cannot say that it is a Bond film because Q's in it, because there are gadgets, and Moneypenny flirting scenes with last name first introductions, a Bond film is defined by the central character and how he reacts and does his assignments. On to the characters, Vesper Lynd as the Bond girl is utterly superb. Eva Green is super attractive in her own right but her character is more complex then any Pussy Galore. Her interactions with Bond are the best in the series as far as Bond/Bond girl relationships go. In a few scenes they actually feel like a team. Mathis, a character lifted straight out of the Ian Fleming novel is another good character and memories of From Russia With Love's Kerim Bey can't help but appear in my mind while I watch it. The villain, Le Chiffre has earned my respect as a Bond villain. His plot may not be like Hugo Drax but he does seem evil and someone to start loathing midway through the film. M, played again by Judi Dench has been lifted from the Brosnan era and is terrific. She didn't really had that much to do with Pierce, not counting the world is not enough, but she has lots of stuff here! Enough of the characters, watch this movie. The action scenes are amazing and Bond has taken a giant leap from Die Another Day territory.
1/10
Just call it James Bourne, not Bond
cyberjoshy-495799 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is called a james bond movie but is far from it. Other reviewers already have pointed out the flaws so i just list the things i didnt like about it.

  • Daniel craig doesnt fit the role of James Bond imo, he is far to cold and humorless.


  • the poker game scene is BORING! Especially when not knowing the rules.


  • James bond getting married is dumb.


  • the villian is underwhelming. Am i supposed to be impressed by a astmatic and blood-crying villian that is basically a banker?


  • James getting tortured and especially the way how. Is this meant to humiliate the character?


  • the movie takes itself far 2 serious.


Ever since we got a few more movies with daniel craig i didnt like any of them. I hope that now he finally buggered off we can get back to real Bond.
10/10
Not just a good James Bond movie, but an excellent movie in general
Twixted28 February 2016
Casino Royale is a very complete movie and Daniel Craig is a refreshing Bond.

This is clearly the best Bond movie I've ever seen, and might also be the best movie in general.

Daniels performance is excellent and Eva and Mads is doing really well too.

The plot doesn't have any holes that can be pointed out as a sin and the character and plot developing is done very well.

The writing, editing and lighting compliments each other very well too. In my opinion this movie is almost flawless and for sure worth watching.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Masterpiece
Piotreusz9 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay there isn't any movie like that. It's showing how deferent can by Bond. He literally is just doing his mission in casino, where he must win a game of poker. And when you think it's over he just crash and there is first "Damn...". Moreover this isn't the end. One of the best action move and for sure best James Bond movie.
10/10
Craig..Daniel Craig goes in @ #2
poopong21 November 2006
From the opening black and white sequence to the end (bar the crap theme tune) the film was firing on all possible cylinders.

Daniel Craig was superb, Bond is a killer, and Craig looked like he could kill. Looks like the Sean Connery Bond, you could believe he could kill whilst Roger Moore could only raise an eyebrow. Mr Brosnan has gone to #3 but he was a good bond too - when he killed Electra in the world is not enough you believed he was a glorified hit-man.

But back to Casino Royale. No Q branch and no miss moneypenny - although a quick sly nod to her in one scene. Aston Martin was back, thank goodness they got rid of the damn beemers in the last one! there was no gadgets which was a good thing as in the book there was none either. Talking of Ian Flemings 1st Spy novel, the film stayed true, although the baddies were updated to be world terrorists and instead of playing the card game baccarat we saw Bond pit his wits in high stake Texas Hold 'em which again is an update to current times.

There was never a dull moment in the film, cant wait to see the next one!
9/10
Good Bond, but good enough?
trothon21 November 2006
The first Bond film in 4 years didn't disappoint - Mads Mikkelsen played a great villain in Le Chiffre, Eva Green was absolutely lovely as Vesper Lynd, and even Daniel Craig pulled off a solid effort as Bond himself. But was it good enough? I haven't seen all the Bond films (only 5 in fact), but I consider the only effort I've seen of Sean Connery's, Goldfinger, to be a better film. Guaranteed, this film is only considered to be the prequel to Connery's films, and I understand the need to see Bond's grittier side before the sophistication starts to sneak in right at the end, but for me Connery is the archetypal Bond - he was suave, sophisticated and slick - I think I'll wait to Mr Craig's next outing to see if he has the ability to get to the level of Mr Connery.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
top 10 worst ever
sonjasikic18 January 2007
What to say!? For me it's a top 10 worst movies ever! No hard feelings but I just can't get used to a "blonde" Bond! It just doesn't work! What is this movie about anyway? Who or what is he chasing?? Half of the movie is just too boring, no action no nothing! Since I'm in a former Yugoslav republic (CROATIA) - when I saw a part taking place in Montenegro I honestly started to laugh! If Montenegro looked like that I would consider moving there! What a bad joke.... So I don't like it, Craig is good but not for the Bond part, and movie is about...if someone can put it in 2 0r 3 sentences please let me know (I'm blonde)! What happened to a handsome dark man trying to save the world!!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A very good Bond movie
reeceaaleyna18 April 2021
Sometimes I struggle understanding the plot to Bond movies. But with this, I understood. The characters and their roles are amazing. A few twists and turns there but it's not difficult to follow along.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worth waiting for
Caz196428 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly this isn't your typical Bond movie,their are no gadgets,no Q,no Moneypenny,not many Bond girls and not many corny one liners,but that isn't to say that Casino Royale isn't worth watching,because it is.I think Bond films have come to the point where they have needed a change,as most of the recent Bond films have become so similar to previous ones, and the gadgets,well i think we have seen them all now. Casino Royale is much more intense and gritty compared to previous Bond films,after seeing this instalment the rest now seem very light hearted and more like family films.Casino Royale is much more violent the fight scenes are a lot more realistic and the pain looks real.Daniel Craig is great as Bond his character is much more complex than the previous ones, likable sometimes unlikeable at other times,he is a much more rounded character,intense,emotional,cold,vulnerable and unpredictable,he shows all these traits in one character,i don't think any of the other Bond actors could have portrayed him the same way or not as good.Bond here seems much more like a real person for instance in one scene where he has had a big fight on the stairs,he goes to his bathroom to wash the blood off his face,he then with shaking hands pours himself a strong drink,you don't normally see Bond act like this ,yet it was these sort of details which made Casino Royale more interesting,he seemed more human and more believable.I know there are die hard fans out there who don't like the way the new Bond is portrayed,but then these films have to appeal to an up and coming modern audience who may not have been interested in the old Bonds but will be interested in Bond films as of now.
9/10
Perfect Bond
the_blueeyes3 June 2020
After several over-the-top movies with Brosnan, it was time to yank Bond out of the sky and ground him for a more realistic approach to the cat & mouse game. This Bond movie has everything. A suberb rooted plot, excellent scipt and a brilliant cast that gives us a hint of mystique and plenty of drama, thrill, suspense and politics. Almost every major character gets their ass whooped in one way or another. This time, Bond himself is no super agent opting for huge explosions and clever gadgetry (well a little but hardly any unrealistic ones). He is a human like all of us and is given no second chances to survive. He is more loped into an anti-hero role than anything. The beauty of this movie is the villain. Mikkelsen´s Le Chiffre plays a criminal where time is just as much against him as it is for Bond. He needs money to stay alive and goes for a high stake poker game to earn it to finance some nasty plans he needs to pay for. Bond must join in the game to prevent it happening. See, no super bad-guy trickery here, you will be surprised to see what Le Chiffre´s demise will be and who ends him. No Bond movie is complete with the essential Bond girl. This time, a fantastic Eva Green provides her dark looks and presence to cast a more posh counterpart for bond. No blondes this time., just a solid knockout femme fatale. So without a doubt, the best Bond movie ever made in my opinion. Beats Connery, beats Moore.. Beats them all. This is a serious, 100% spy movie for adults. "Shaken or stirred" "Does it look like i give a damn..?"
5/10
James Bond has returned.....Utterly miscast in a disappointing film!
CalDexter8 December 2006
Casino Royale is a very good action spy thriller that anyone who is not a real James Bond Fan will enjoy immensely.

However i'm a James Bond Fan and i'm afraid that Casino Royale is a disappointment. It left me feeling the exact same way as i did when i saw On Her Majesty's Secret Service for the first time, and not just because its a miscast actor in the role.

I mean Daniel Craig is simply WRONG for the role of James Bond! There's a scene where he tries on the Tuxedo in a hotel room for the first time and poses in the bathroom mirror to let the audience speculate. Sorry, but he reminded me more of Robert Shaw's Red Grant in From Russia With Love rather than Sean Connery or Roger Moore...and i'm sick of hearing that most of Moore's Bond films were rubbish, they were brilliant flicks! Anyway, Daniel Craig seems to have been told by the director Martin Campbell to REALLY pout those lips at the camera and the Production lighting enhances those sea blue eyes of his as to make him as sub human as possible. All wrong i'm afraid. Daniel Craig is a superb character actor in films like Layer Cake and TV shows like Our Friends In The North, but as James Bond 007 he is severely miscast on looks alone. As I've said he would have made a great Bond villain or henchman but not as the suave and sophisticated great Spy himself.

Its not all Daniel Craig's fault of course. The music score is rubbish as is the title song 'You know my Name'. David Arnold is a lacklustre composer who recycles classic Bond themes and tracks through crappy computer and keyboard equipment, John Barry he is not! The way the Bond producers try to screw around with the 'tradition' of James Bond films defies belief. By tradition i mean the classic mini adventure has been tampered with to have James Bond's gun barrel sequence take place in.....a slum toilet. And Bond's second kill in this film is a tired retread of James Bond's assassination of Professor Dent in Dr. No. The storyline is asking us to forsake all that has gone before from Dr. No to Die Another Day and that Bond has just obtained his 'OO' license to kill and that the real Bond adventures start here.

If that is to be the case then what the hell is Judi Dench doing as M?! Her character has been badly rewritten, she does not really like this Bond but during the Brosnan days she secretly liked and yearned for Bond to come back safely. Its all really depressing that the producers and writers were anxious to change the formula again, and what if Daniel Craig quits after his second outing like Dalton did? Then they are in trouble , because if Bond ends up being portrayed by as many actors who played Tarzan then the character of Bond will become lost for good and no one will identify with who and what he was all about in the first place.

A bitterly disappointing Bond film.
8/10
Best Blond Bond
ArtVandelayImporterExporter21 December 2020
Full disclosure: i've never understand all the hype around James Bond movies. Dr. No is flat-out drive-in movie garbage. From Russia with Love is a great spy thriller that stands alone (and probably should have been left alone). But my goodness it got silly fast, right from the opening scene of Goldfinger and the peurile dyck-joke about his gun. And long before audiences tired of Bond, Connery did, showing better taste than most movie-goers.

Roger Moore was better on TV as The Saint, but a hopeless dandy as Bond. Dalton was a sonorous stage actor who had no sense of levity whatsoever as Bond. Brosnan, like Moore, was better on TV, in his case on Remington Steele, but a smirking pretty boy on the big screen.

All of them mostly were stuck in low-grade action movies written to appeal to 12 year old boys.

Along comes Daniel Craig for the re-boot. And they managed to get just about everything right. He's not reduced to cheap double entendres. He's tough. He's cool. He's flawed.

The bad guy is cool. The Bond ''girl" is more than just a cheap decoration. Dench is amazing. And the song rocks.

Not sure the third act holds up quite as well as the rest of the film, but still a lot of fun.
10/10
Best Bond ever!
Stefanowich3 December 2006
The screenwriters, the director and the producers - they've all taken a huge chance with Casino Royale. Leaving the comedy-style James Bond we've grown accustomed to and gone darker, grittier and most definitely bloodier than ever before. Daniel Craig is the new James Bond, and he is James Bond like no one before. James Bond in Casino Royale is impulsive and sometimes makes the wrong decisions. When he gets beaten he gets bloody and it hurts. Badly. He's simply more human and I love it! As far as the dark side of James Bond goes I simply say, stay dark James. Stay dark. With Daniel Craig, and the new dark setting, a new James Bond has been born. Casino Royale is not only the best James Bond movie ever. It's most definitely one of the best action movies ever! To sum it up; Casino Royale is James Bond joining Vic Mackey on his Strike Team and going after the bad guys no holds barred!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Even my wife loved it.
nzchook9 December 2006
I think this is my first ever vote of 10. Wow... This Bond movie broke the mold. Forget the corny lines and gadget power of the last 20 years of Bond movies. Right from the start the action and danger was palpable. Daniel Craig as Bond was electric. As newly promoted "00" in this prequel, this bond was believably human...bleeding and scraped after every fight, vulnerable in love, yet completely self sufficient. Even my wife who reluctantly attended after much cajoling, was impressed...I suspect mostly with Bond's bod. She even suggested (several times) maybe it was time for me to rejoin the gym. Bottom line...From Africa to Venice to Florida it was a heart pumping action jaunt good-versus-evil movie with more than believable acting. Welcome back Bond.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
newly calibrated Bond is a good thing
HelloTexas116 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The latest re-launch of the James Bond series is the most radical departure from the established formula yet, which is a good thing. There are just enough references to the old franchise (a line of dialogue here and there, a couple of familiar characters, snippets of the old theme played occasionally) to assure us that this is indeed a 007 film. Apparently, though, all we really need to accept a movie as an entry in the Bond series is a main character who is a secret agent for the British government. 'Casino Royale' is a tough, realistically violent flick that makes all the previous Bonds seem positively cartoonish by comparison. When 007 is tortured, he's not strapped to a table fully clothed with a less-than-convincing laser beam inching its way toward him; here he's stripped naked and bound to a chair with the bottom cut out, then a man with a knotted rope proceeds to whack the hell out of him right between the legs, if you know what I mean. Daniel Craig's 007 has less in common with any of his predecessors than he does with the Robert Shaw character in 'From Russia With Love.' That is, he is a killing machine, remorseless, at times practically invincible. From the blows, knife wounds, torture, and poison he is subjected to, one is surprised he can even walk during the last third of the film, much less give chase and do battle with the bad guys yet again. He can affect a sophisticated air when necessary (like Shaw's character) and he is extremely intelligent and perceptive: a brute with a brain. But where it was clear with the other Bonds what motivated them to do this kind of work (the perks, the women, ego), one is never quite sure what motivates Daniel Craig's Bond. One suspects at times he is a masochist. He certainly gets precious little respect or encouragement from M (Judi Dench, the only carryover from the Brosnan films), which I suppose is in keeping with M's character from the time of Bernard Lee. Dench's M is a real bitch though which for obvious reasons Lee never could be. And there is the briefest of passing meetings with Felix Leiter of the CIA. Although it serves useful to the plot, one wonders why they bothered; perhaps to keep the connection alive for future episodes. The one section of 'Casino Royale' that feels unnatural is when 007 apparently falls in love with the latest 'Bond Girl,' Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and resigns from MI-6 to be with her. Is it a ruse? It certainly is on HER part, as she betrays him and tries to get away with millions of pounds he thought he'd recovered for the British Treasury. She dies in Bond's arms and his grief seems genuine. Perhaps this is meant to establish his reluctance in the future to 'prolonged' relationships. So the latest re-boot of the 007 franchise is a successful one and should inject the nearly 50-year-old series with enough fresh energy to keep it going for a while.
8/10
The "Casino Royale" Movie
rgarnerjr28 November 2006
For all you 007 fans out there, I just want to say without giving anything away about this movie, "Casino Royale"... The movie truly provides action that keeps your attention, but I personally missed the James Bond flavor like the past, which he was introduced with a host of special gadgets, firepower galore and fully armored exotic sports cars.

Casino Royale has a brand new actor name Daniel Craig, who showed some potential for the character of James Bond who does "style and profile" in the Aston Martin exotic car, but I have to admit, it's going to be a tall order to top the noble Sean Connery who stands on top of the list as the best bond ever hands down! Then comes Pierce Brosnan who also played James Bond to the tee!

Fans, all I can say is that you will be entertained with the action and drama of this new bond character who shows both mental and physical toughness, but having only two or three little gadgets just looses the special ingredients that gives the typical James Bond the trademark of being the ultimate secret agent we all been use too... Nevetherless, I still enjoyed the movie somewhat :-)!
8/10
genre expectations: action
10sion24 March 2020
Anticipation 1 Conflict 2 Engagement 2 Entertainment 2 Production 1 Total 8
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
8/10 without the opening credits sequence
itsumishi31 October 2012
Well I finally got around to sitting down and watching Casino Royale. It seems the critics were right. Daniel Craig acted superbly, the opening scenes in B&W were magnificent. The parkour chase at the start was beautifully executed and really the storyline was classic Bond. The whole film, minus the few minutes of opening credits sequence were all very good.

Unfortunately that opening credits sequence was horribly horrendous, the music, the cheesy as hell flash animation, the music, the cheesy and disgusting animation, the music... the crappy animation... the way Daniel Craig faded into the scene where his cheap, jagged black animated silhouette once was while the singer of that terrible song continuously shouts "you know my name!" over and over...oh god.

2/10 but 8/10 without that opening sequence.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Successful dark Connery
EvanKevelson27 February 2021
Personally when I rate a Bond Film I rate it only in the context of all Bond Films. These aren't deep message films they are action films based on a covert MI-6 agent whose missions are to infiltrate, gather Intel and kill when necessary. The Rating also has to be looked at From a historical perspective not only factually but sociological norms of that particular era or decade. So if I see a review that depicts Bond as racist (not any black characters) or Bond being a sick misogynistic animal... I know the reviewer is ignorant of what audiences where pleased by between 1962-1997 etc... They also are just as fanatic in liberal ideology as a religious conservative fanatic. These films aren't political statements, and until the mid 80s wouldn't be "date films". They're mostly rated PG for a reason. Roger Moore brought a new era of what I refer to as the Adam West Campy Bond targeted for 9-15 year old boys. Criticizing Bond on a "morality" basis is the same as criticizing looney tunes for excessive violence. It's moronic. After Pierce who I felt was a cross between Connery and Moore and had two very good Bond Scripts (Golden Eye & Tomorrow Never Dies). A Bond fan after Pierce was done wanted a grittier Bond that was darker, still had the humor, and the coldness required for the job in a post 9/11 World. The Daniel Craig Bond through "Spectre" is a 4 part saga and if it was marketed as such and put out like predecessors every 1.5-2 years.., Would be seen as a Bond saga, or rebirth which it successfully was. Many fans disappointed with "Quantam" and Spectre who I know did a Craig Bond Marathon loved it. I see Casino Royale alone as an 8.5, Quantum alone as a 6, Skyfall a 9 and Spectre a 6.75...As a complete story I see an 8.5. And for those Dalton 80s lovers... get a life... you want a dark angry bond, but still with the Bond edge and witticism this Saga is the Resuscitation. Bond 25/ or Not the day to Die that will be Craig's second Bond story. Like Nolan's Batman Trilogy those who see the third as an individual film will be disappointed but those who know it's the final chapter will enjoy it (except Bane's voice).
10/10
Absolutely The Best Bond Film. Daniel Craig And Eva Green Are Excellent.
derekdiercksmeier16 November 2012
Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale" Is Not Only A Great Bond Film, But Also An Excellent Film. Daniel Craig Is An Excellent Actor And His Performance As James Bond Is Amazing. Craig Creates A Real Character, Not Just An Idea Of A Man. James Bond Is A Real Person In "Casino Royale", Something That No Other Bond Film Has Achieved Or Even Attempted. Martin Campbell's Direction Is Thrilling and Handsome. The Opening Scene, Which Was Filmed On Black-and-White, Is Beautiful And Compelling. The Villain Is A Man Named Le Chiffre Who Cries In Tears Of Blood. Le Chiffre Is Played By Mads Mikkelsen Of "Valhalla Rising" And "Pusher". Mads Mikkelsen Makes A Great Bond Villain And Is Yet Another Highlight Of The Film. However, My Favorite Performance In "Casino Royale" Is That Of Eva Green. Green Plays A Woman Named Vesper Lynd, The Film's "Bond Girl". Eva Green Is An Extraordinary Actress And Lends More Depth To The Character Than I Thought Possible. Vesper Lynd Is Flawed, Intelligent, And Incredibly Sexy. Vesper Is Much More Than Arm Candy For James Bond. Her Character Is Significant To The Story. Eva Green Is Not Portrayed As A Bombshell, But A Femme Fatale. Her Eye Makeup Is Absolutely Stunning And The Purple Dress She Wears Is Gorgeous. Vesper Lynd Was My Favorite Part Of "Casino Royale", Which Was A Remarkable Feat. I Loved This Film And The New Take On The Iconic Character. You Will Enjoy This Film Even If You Have Never Seen A Bond Film. "Casino Royale" Is As Much An Origins Story As It It A Bond Movie. The Film Is Highly Entertaining Without Ever Sacrificing Depth Or Character For Action, Which There Is Plenty Of. "Casino Royale" Is An Excellent Film.
9/10
Well worth the wait...
netty196824 November 2006
I must admit, from the outset, I have always believed that Daniel Craig was the most obvious choice as the new Bond, but I had to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with me!!! Having recently seen the latest outing for the world's number one agent, I have now had my beliefs confirmed. Daniel Craig manages to add that extra emotional resonance to a character that had, up until recently, become a two dimensional caricature.

His physicality manages to fill the screen, adding a genuine belief that, if unleashed to his full potential, he could cause some serious damage to his foes! The action and fight scenes are breathtaking, with a depth of reality that leaves you speechless. The story is credible and even the parts where the action is limited, the characters provide enough motivation to keep the viewer hooked.

I could go on about how fantastic this film is but, in order to truly believe that the James Bond for the 21st century has definitely arrived, you need to go see Casino Royale for yourself...NOW!
1/10
The worst Bond film ever :(
JSN_Conners12 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is with out a doubt a lemon. You can tell by the lemon sucking look constantly on Daniel Craig's face. :D But seriously the story is a mess and the action, which is good, is too far and in between to make it a good film. I might have forgiven Casino Royale missing all of the trademarks of a good Bond film, that's right it's missing all of them, if the actor would have sold me on his being Bond. This was the first time I didn't believe the actor playing Bond was Bond, and I began my Bond carrier watching Roger Moore at the local Cineplex. Roger is Bond for me in many ways and I believed the actors that came after him, T Dalton and P Brosnan, were Bond before the opening credits. Daniel Craig may be a good actor but a good Bond he is not.

In the end Casino Royal is not Bond film either it was a bad imitation of Jason Bourne and the worst hour of 24. There is nothing made this film stand out, the "love of Bond's life", vesper Lynn, was unconvincing there was no connection, no conviction behind any of their moments. If you want to see Bond in love watch On Her Majesty's Secret Service, G Lazenby and Diana Rigg are great together and believable as a couple.

My biggest problem with Daniel Craig is he can't connect with the leading ladies. It is impossible to be Bond and be a miss with the ladies. He does flirt, but for Craig it seem like something of an effort. Craig wanted to make Bond a human being, unfortunately, he's not a human being that's fun or interesting to spend two and a half hours with.

I recommend giving this film a miss and picking up one or two of the previous Bond films on DVD for half the cost.
10/10
Very Very good
pinkliz4123 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Band returns, in the best one yet. With all action, adventure and suspense throughout. After Peirce Brosnans departure after Die Another Day. You could only look for a great, fine actor, and found it in Daniel Craig. This Bond was recreating the brutal violence that was lost in the other films, and to expand the story further and resolving around Bond before and during he becomes a 00.

Martin Camball, here returns to direct Casino Royale, and lastly directed the first Peirce Brosnan 007 outing in Goldeneye. And has extended and better improved the James Bond saga today. With it's moments of intense and graphic realistic violence, Bond travels along way, and succeeding stupendously. Go and see this, without a shadow of a doubt
9/10
James Bond is back!
imdb-580723 November 2006
I really liked this movie, unlike the the previous one. They cut back on the gadgetry--compared to the last one--making the whole story more believable without missing out on any of the sleek stunts, cars and other high-tech toys. Of course, you will find incredible twists and tricks, as well as a few inconsistencies and extremely improbable events (for example in a medical aspect, in poker, etc.) The storyline related to current events. It was somewhat challenging to follow. I (and my girl friend) had a hard time following some of the dialogue at times--we missed 3-4 crucial expressions (but which we could more or less fill in afterwards; the movie theater's audio system could have been partly responsible for this.) The film had a good balance of action, trickery, and romance. It was even spiked with some comedy. I found the acting and the cinematography very satisfactory. I am looking forward to the next one!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Upon Further Review: What?
trothbl126 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I first saw this movie a couple of years ago I was entertained. It did not hold my interest as much as a Bond movie starring Connery, Moore, or Brosnan, but I thought the film had some nice action sequences and nice scenery.

Now my aunt was visiting today and she had never seen the movie, although she is an avid Bond fan. So we decided to pop in the DVD. The only thing I could think of was "How could I have liked this movie before?" I thought there was a handful non sequitur moments whenever Bond would piece together something. And its not like I didn't understand the story and that there loose ends, its that many times there was no way for him in those situations to come up with those conclusions himself; its as if the character has seen the movie before. The relationship between Bond and the girl suddenly becomes undying passionate love after they are freed from the torture rooms. Bond's main mission was to win a poker game??? Honestly I don't know how I didn't see this the first time.

The thing that perplexed me the most though was reading the rave reviews this movie had on this and other sites. Its easier to understand these considering they were made when the movie first came out, but I am wondering have people seen this movie for what it really was after seeing it a second or third time? I understand this movie was kind of a remake ("kind of" because the original was more of a comedy if anything) so I don't fault this movie with what I've come to see as a silly main plot. But after the original mini mission of stopping the plane from blowing up, there was no actual espionage! I guess there should be a little concession that I had just seen the Dark Knight earlier today (for the second time) and that by comparison this wasn't even close to measuring up. But even when I saw it two years ago I never even considered this a Bond movie, whether it was because of the actor or the script I don't really know or care.
9/10
Blonde Ambition
BumpyRide20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finally! All the pretty and silly Bond's of recent years have been swept away and put in their place is the Bond Ian Fleming must have envisioned. Daniel Craig IS Bond from the first glimpse of him photographed in cold black and white. His Bond is cruel, imperfect, emotionally wanting and can take a beating but keeps on ticking. Casino Royale packs an action packed punch from the opening scene where Bond is chasing an animal like man who can climb up girders of a building being constructed using his bare hands and feet, and who can propel himself through narrow openings; to an ending, where again, Bond is in a building, but this time it is collapsing as is Bond's chance to find love. No silliness or wise crack one liners or "invisible" cars here.

His journey is long in the film and he is changed by the end of it. Eva Green pales in comparison to Craig's Bond. Perhaps lovely to look at but she offers little more than window dressing. Her Vesper lacked a fire that would temp Bond to leave MI5, and run away with her into the good night. But these complaints are minor because there is so much about the film that works. An excellent villain (fabulously portrayed), a testy M, with locales that are so incredible you want to call your travel agent and book the next flight to Montenegro.

The second half of the film more or less follows Fleming's novel, which has one of the better story lines. Thankfully, the story was not thrown away and replaced with a "typical" Bond formula. The final scene says it all, but I will not spoil anyone's enjoyment of it, but Bond is definitely back and rightfully so!
8/10
James bond
legobuilderpro25 January 2021
This was really good, Daniel Craig is really good on portraying 007.

Awesome action scenes that go with the wonderful music, this is a much watch.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Almost as bad as A View To A Kill
sunrival23 November 2006
This is what happens when someone decides to remove everything that made the Bond movies what they were and slap the James Bond name on the result. It was a boring, overlong mess. The opening gambit wasn't very good, the opening credits were very hokey and dumb looking, and there were only moments of enjoyment in the rest (as opposed to mere moments of boredom in TRUE Bond movies).

Having said that, if they return Bond to what it should be, I think that Craig could make a passable Bond, as he did deliver some of the Bond-ish lines pretty well.

Wait for the cheap theaters if you must see this. It is not Bond.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Beautifully filmed and full of action, suspense and martinis!
Marc_Israel_36529 April 2013
Bond 6.0: I admit that I only took notice when the James Bond series dropped the poser Bonds of the past. Daniel Craig's Bond is simply cooler and manlier than any Bond since Sean Connery. The smarts don't suffer, and the action is much more believable in it's unbelievably wild filmed state with the physically stunning Craig. The opening scene and title sequence needs to be re- watched to fully appreciate. The filming in itself is intelligently appropriate. The plot can be followed without the non-sense of superhero gadgets of the past yet still includes beautiful women who can not resist the Bond machismo and those delectable double blinds of the spy world.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A masterclass in how to save an endangered series
David_Frames18 November 2006
History is littered with decisive reversals, one immediately thinks of the Nazis at Stalingrad or Liverpool in the 2005 Champions league final but to these we can now add Casino Royale; as complete and affirming a rebuke to the Pierce Brosnan quartet of derivative, self-parodic Bonds as you could dare hope for. It is, following 2002's ludicrous Die Another Day, nothing short of a cinematic miracle – a creative shot of heroin to Bond's dick, as coarse and as eye opening as Le Chiffe's rope – a global audience strapped to their seat less chair and forced to atone for their patronage of the Brosnan stupidity, a rumoured title incidentally for his aborted fifth entry. Yes, welcome to Dalton's revenge.

The change of fortune for the series is incredible given where we were only four years and one film ago. All the more amazing given the previous film's box office clout, Royale is a rare instance of the filmmakers looking beyond the numbers and thinking of their audience and the result deserves huge credit, not least because it's a brave thing to have done but also because in abandoning the expedient option and simply trotting out another piece of pantomime stupidity, they've talked up to Bond's global constituency of fans and potentially laid the foundations for a new and exciting era for the series.

The "fans" are an issue here because whoever they are, God alone knows what they'll think of the rougher tone and the lack of camp and innuendo that's blighted previous instalments. In their place we have, given the treatment of Fleming's previous novels, an incredible faithful adaptation, tweaked certainly but losing none of the cold, ironical and brutal characterisation that defined the author's work. Timothy Dalton, until now the best of the bunch, went some way toward putting the literary Bond on screen but was constrained somewhat by an established formula which he invigorated but on that occasion didn't break. When he pushed it further in Licence to Kill he was branded a failure. Daniel Craig has no such difficulties. In sourcing the first novel, Craig is free to pretend his predecessors didn't exist and obliterates them with a performance ripped from the page. Series purists may argue he's too cold, lacks humour, fails to temper the nastiness with wit but this is incidental, lazy criticism. Craig ties Connery for the definitive portrayal because whatever's chucked at him he can argue, and be the first to be accurate on this point, that he's Ian Fleming's James Bond – something that only Dalton and the aforementioned Scotsman could have got close to.

Hyperbole aside, its fair to say that Craig doesn't so much p*ss on Brosnan's chips as deep fry them in his own urine. It really is the difference between Bollinger Grande Annee and a glass of Tesco's own but then these are two very different takes not just on the character but on his entire world – the series has been completely rebuilt and the effect is as glorious as it exhilarating. Gone is the sub-Austin Powers regurgitation of old motifs and plots and in their place we have Fleming's story, short enough to be beefed up with modern action set-pieces but rooted in the characters of Bond and Vesper Lynd to the extent that 90% of the script writer's work has been done for them. The key word here is restraint because in sticking to the book and resisting the temptation to work in moronic puns, playing cards that double as plastic explosives and brain dead supporting cleavage, Purvis & Wade (with help from Paul Haggis), who's previous efforts were so poor many suspected they'd been replaced by a computer called BANG (the B-movie Action Narrative Generator), have rehabilitated themselves with a plot that really moves, dialogue that occasionally zings and a structure that effortlessly integrates the book's action-lite narrative with the meatier requirements of the contemporary action event movie. Judy Dench, confusingly returned here as M and consequently raising some awkward questions about series continuity, looks like she's in a different set of films and the new lease of life is infectious – various sequences imbued with a immediacy and violence missing from a generations worth of Bond adventures. Its not perfect – the opening titles are paired down but look decidedly basic, like the introduction to a sadistic version of Play your Cards Right. Its arguably, like yours truly, a fraction too long and the product placement though scaled down still offends but Poker never held your attention like this in a mainstream action adventure and the set up for the next film leaves a sense of anticipation that speaks volumes for the intelligent and well judged film that's been made here.

For fans of the series this should be an invigorating shot in the arm but the experience of Dalton forces us to sound a note of caution. There is no doubt that Casino Royale is one of the best Bonds, ranking with From Russia with Love, OHMSS and the Living Daylights amongst the series vintage instalments but the experience of Lazenby's film and the two Timothy's shows us that audiences have historically, in the US at least, rejected the paired down, serious takes on the character. In these slightly more cynical times lets hope that Fleming's 1950's character has finally caught up with the mood of his audience. The filmmakers have done their part after all and Craig deserves to be a worldwide smash so if this isn't the start of as long and lucrative era for the series you'll only have yourselves to blame. No really, there's no excuse now – Royale is the Bond movie some of us have been waiting on for years, the only thing that can ruin the series now is the stupidity of its audience and in that event you really will deserve to be patronised with Brosnan like nonsense. Craig deserves better than that and so do we.
10/10
Exhilarating; the best Bond movie I've seen in some time
LoneWolfAndCub10 January 2007
Whoa, what a movie!! Tense chases, spectacular stunts, gadgets galore and beautiful girls. What a return to the James Bond series. I first had some doubt about Daniel Craig playing Bond but as soon as I saw him in the first scene (shot in beautiful black and white) I knew he was the right man for the job. He had the look, the accent and the charm.

In this prequel, James Bond has just been promoted to 007 and has to play in a high-stakes poker game against Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) to prevent him from funding terrorists.

Who knew a poker game could be so exciting???!!! I was on the edge the whole time, it was easily my favourite scene (and the best directed in my opinion). But there were so many exciting, beautifully shot and well-directed scenes. The chase at the start was so well done and extremely suspenseful (and it had some great stunts). Daniel Craig is probably the best Bond after Connery and I hope he does more movies. He delivers those classic one-liners quite well. Eva Green is great as the sexy accomplice and Mads Mikkelsen is a menacing villain.

I haven't had such a good movie going experience in quite some time! 5/5.
4/10
A good movie, but not a Bond movie.
mail-287824 November 2006
I saw it tonight and I must admit, it wasn't really my cup of tea.

I'm a Bond fan of old and although I understand the need for change and would even admit that Bond has perhaps taken steps in the right direction in this movie, it just wasn't for me.

It was a good movie, but it wasn't what I personally want in a Bond movie. Maybe I'm just a sucker for the old stuff but I love the daring gadgets, the girls in the opening credits, the great song, the clichéd lines.

Some very interesting stuff happened to Bond in this movie, but "this never happened to the other fellow".
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Craig is the Bond God
Mmyers200319 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was excellent. The plot, the bond (Craig was outstanding), the style/tone, the characters. Everything was just perfect. The comic book gimmicks and no-brainer story lines have been replaced in favour of more gritty undertones and mature plot twists. Lets not forget too that its the first time in 25 years that they have used a genuine Ian Fleming story.

***SPOILER*** I even like the new thing of leaving the film open ended. A nice touch and a near certainty that the next film will be just as good as this one ***SPOILER END***

One more thing I would like to bring to the attention of you all. There is a website out there called craigisnotbond.com. I urge anyone that is a true fan of Bond (and of Craig himself) to go there and make your feelings know to them that they are WRONG and that Craig is here to stay.
Be prepared to be marvelled and thrilled!
Gordon-112 January 2007
I am quite amazed by this film. Right from the beginning, we already get an adrenaline rush by a deathly chase on a crane miles up in the sky. Then there are numerous explosions, shootings and fights. The mega budget can easily be seen, from luxurious resorts to buildings collapsing or oil tankers exploding. Something is going on every second.

The editing is very tight. Each scene shows only what viewers need to see, and no more. There are no elaborate shots, as each shot only exists to tell us a bit of information. Due to this tight editing, the pace is very very quick, and the action is very fast moving. The result is that the film is very condensed, very action packed. It keeps me on the edge most of the time! The story is simple and yet has enough suspense to keep viewers interested. The ending is a bit confusing, as there are far too many twists. Anyway, the point of watching this film is to be entertained and be marvelled. The film achieved both of these aims.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale
searchanddestroy-129 August 2015
I will just comment this item to point out one thing, which I presume had been said in the other comments. This movie is a real turn in the James Bond franchise. Yes, a real turn. There will be a before and an after Daniel Craig in the lead character. When you watch the opening sequence, the opening chase sequence, you stay glued to your seat. You have never seen that before in the other James Bond series. Never. And I am deadly sure that Pierce Brosnan would have never been able to perform in such a physical way. I guess that the Jason Bourne franchise starring Matt Damon was the original cause to fire Pierce Brosnan from the franchise and replace him by Daniel Craig, more "physical"; so that James Bond franchise may be the equal of the Jason Bourne's one. That's all I wanted to emphasize on folks.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What's all the fuss about?!? I just don't get it.
xxxplicitrecordz28 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I don't normally feel compelled to write reviews like this but there have been so many people wetting their pants over this film and lavishing such enormous praise on it that I felt I had to add my 2 cents in this case.

I can remember the first time I saw this movie, a friend brought it round when it had just come out on DVD... long story short, it was the only time I can EVER remember being bored with a James Bond film. I just wanted it to end, it seemed to go on forever... and at the end I remember thinking 'What the hell was that?!? What have they DONE to James Bond? Where was the JB theme, the gadgets, the excitement? The FUN?!?' And then I later thought, well if I feel like that then I can't be the only one. There must be people all over the place complaining about this utter mutilation of a tried-and-tested formula that has worked so well for decades.

Not so. I since discovered that according to many critics and fans around the world this is apparently 'the greatest Bond film ever', and Daniel Craig is 'the best Bond ever'.

Um.... HUH?!? OK then... I thought. Maybe it was just me and I wasn't paying attention or something then. I decided to give the film a second viewing.

Well... all I can say is I don't know what these people must be smoking but I want some of it. Upon my second viewing my feelings of the film were a bit better but my overall reaction at the end of it was simply, 'meh'.

Apparently the 'best Bond film ever' features a Bond who falls hopelessly in love with an average-looking woman who is nothing special (and pathetically has to be rescued by her and others all the time), a mundane and unthreatening villain who keeps getting pwned and doesn't actually kill anyone, a horrific torture scene featuring an extremely unpleasant image (for me) of a naked Daniel Craig getting his balls whipped (this kind of thing has NO place in a Bond film!!! Especially one with a '12' rating!!!), 1/2 the film spent sitting round a Poker table (not my idea of 'thrilling'), Bond driving a... Ford, a Blonde Bond, very little humour, no gadgets, no Q, no Moneypenny and - most criminal of all - NO JAMES BOND THEME throughout the entire movie. Yup, you heard that correct. Although I think for some reason they might have stuck it in at the END of the film instead.... o_0 W..T..F?!?! Now people are claiming to love this 'grittier, darker Bond' (read: humourless and charmless) lauding the fact that it's more 'realistic' and those 'silly gadgets are gone'. Well forgive me but since when was a Bond film supposed to be 'realistic'?! Isn't that the whole point? I love the old Bond films for what they are, classic ESCAPISM. I really couldn't care less whether they seem 'real' or not.. who cares.. the gadgets and silly stuff were all part of the FUN to me, a concept which seems to be severely lacking in this film.

Its almost like they've literally changed EVERYTHING in this film compared to past Bonds. I can appreciate that after 'Die Another Day' the franchise needed a severe change in direction, OK... but they didn't have to change EVERYTHING. -_- And oh for the glorious days of Ursula Andress emerging from the sea in that bikini. It seems nowadays all we get to see emerging out of the water is.... erm, Daniel Craig and his six-pack. What the hell?!? James Bond films were never about looking at guys' abs?! Or him pathetically pandering to mediocre women? What's going on? Was the whole thing taken over by the PC-feminist brigade or something? A lot of people constantly denounce Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever as being the worst in the JB series. Yes, they have some notoriously silly moments, but personally I would much rather watch those over CR any day, I find them both to be much more entertaining.

As a stand-alone action film its OK I guess, I'd give it about 6 out of 10. But because it purports to be a 'James Bond' film, containing almost none of the traditional trappings that make a James Bond film so good (as well as being pretty long and boring), it gets a 3 from me.

Most over-rated film in a long time.
8/10
Pretty darn good.
fthill19 November 2006
I went with my girlfriend and saw this on Saturday. I am a long time Bond fan and have been with him from the beginning. Since my girl and I are both old timers 55+ we may have a different perspective than all the kids who might see this. There was plenty of action but not all the blow up special effects you would expect in a Bond movie and I thought it was for the better. I thought Craig is a great Bond, maybe as good as Sean Connery but we'll have to see him in a few more before we'll be able to make that claim He is a BAD DUDE so villains beware. The few things I was a little disappointed with was no Miss Money Penny or Q. To me they're a must. Also I still can't get used to Judi Dench as M. No offense to her, but she just doesn't fit. Anthony Hopkins or Michael Cain would work much better. I recommend the film highly, there's plenty of action and the locations were great. Frank.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
you killed 007
rebeldog0119 November 2006
I cannot believe that done such a discredit to the actors; the plot had no continuity. It was like OK its time for violence' now its time for some loving. I have been a 007 fan since Ian Fleming came out with the books, and Dr. No movie on, and this absolutely stunk. The villain were portrayed as absolute wimps compared to past villains. I went to see this movie wary of the new Bond image, but he was fine; him or even the greatest Bond of all couldn't have pulled this movie out of the fires. I read the book in 1961 and the movie follow the plot lines But from their the flow of the movie is chopped up, I do not understand how this happened.
11 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Yes, yes, yes ... and no.
alecwest18 November 2006
Let me get the "no" out first. Purists will say this is a good retelling of the original novel. And yet, this is supposed to be an "updated to present day" version. In that respect, I compare "Casino Royale" to the film, "Sum of All Fears." In the Tom Clancy novel, the terrorists were Islamist extremists. Hollywood, too timid to tell it like it was for fear of a backlash protest from the Muslim community (ala "True Lies") changed the Islamists to Nazis. In the 1950s when Fleming wrote "Casino Royale," we could have believed that a terror financier had a name like LeChiffre. But if the film is supposed to be updated to 21st Century realities, terrorist financiers have names like Mohammad, Khalid, and Osama.

So, I take one star away from "Casino Royale" for being too timid to update LeChiffre to a 21st Century name that could be associated to terror. No, I'm not saying everyone with Islamic/Arabic names are terrorists. I'm just saying that in 2006, a name like "LeChiffre" doesn't ring any terror chimes with me.

Other that that, everything else about the film was excellent. I went into the theater with one fear based on something Barbara Broccoli said ... that Bond would be shown as "vulnerable." And I wanted to see Bond in the same way as Martin Sheen saw Robert Duvall's character in "Apocalypse Now" ... as a person who had an aura about him where he knew for a fact he'd make it home OK. The 007 I've come to know and love was the personification of ultimate self-confidence.

But, while Craig's Bond started out as appearing vulnerable, the entire rest of the film was a period of "growth" for Bond ... with that same "aura" realized by the running of the final credits. In short, the film delivered on all counts and serves well to introduce Bond to neophytes who may not yet have seen a Bond film. Bond 22 cannot come soon enough for me. Bravo!
7/10
"You take the next one. There's not enough room in here for me and your ego."
Hey_Sweden20 November 2021
Almost four decades after the novel was first filmed as a spoof, the Ian Fleming story gets reinvented for the James Bond franchise as a serious yarn about Bond (Daniel Craig, making a smashing debut) relentlessly pursing an icy-cold money expert, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), who acts as financier for the worlds' terrorists. It shows us how this latest special agent using the "James Bond" designation first earned his "double 0" status. Bond will ultimately face off against Le Chiffre in a very high-stakes card game, with the intention of preventing Le Chiffre from winning the big prize. (Which the bad guy needs to do to stay in the good graces of his clients.). Watching over Bond is a Treasury department official, Vesper Lynd (Eva Green). Naturally, Bond and the lovely Vesper don't get along that well at first, but there is definitely a spark there.

Craig is a very cool, self-confident Bond who can be reckless at times. He's well matched with Green, one of the most charming Bond girls that this viewer has seen in a while. Their first big scene together is electric as they size each other up. Mikkelsen is a fun, effectively low-key antagonist. The leads are well supported by a top international cast including Dame Judi Dench (once again playing "M"), Giancarlo Giannini, Jeffrey Wright, Simon Abkarian, Isaach De Bankole, Jesper Christensen, and Ivana Milecevic.

"Casino Royale" begins with a flourish, with most of the opening 19 minutes devoted to action, before settling into the story proper. In fact, much of the first half contains some breathless action set pieces. A large portion of the second half is devoted to the critical card game, which does get appropriately tense at times. There's room for some humor, and Craig does give this Bond a bit of an edge while also giving us a classic image of Bond as a man who's masterful with the ladies. The plot twists are well laid-out, and once again there is a certain delight in all the globe-trotting going on. Even more importantly, there are some very human moments here which help to ground the material, especially in that second half. There's a decent special effects climax of a building disintegrating.

All in all, very agreeable escapist entertainment that, although somewhat over-extended at almost two and a half hours, always tells a good story.

The screenplay is credited to Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis, with director Martin Campbell returning to the franchise for the first time since 1995s' "GoldenEye". The late Chris Cornell belts out a solid theme song that helps the film to get off to a rocking start.

Seven out of 10.
9/10
The Bond Goes On
LeonLouisRicci25 February 2014
There is so Much that is Right in this Reboot of James Bond, one of the Most Enduring Literary Fictional Characters to Ever Transmutate to the Screen. It is the Beginning of it All. This is Bond as He was at the Start of His Career. Not as Suave and Self-Assured, not as Refined and Detached from the Ladies. He had Love in His Heart and Allowed his Attraction to the Opposite Sex to be more than just an Object.

Over the Course of His Life as a British MI6 Super Spy He Matured, Hardened (in his private affairs), became More Worldly and Honed His Methods to Fit the Situation and Was Not so Impulsive in Relying on Instinct and Testosterone. But that was the Bond that was to Evolve, not the Bond of the Early Years and this is the Earliest of Years, in Fact the First.

This was the Initial Ian Fleming Novel and Introduced the Character. This Film Introduces James Bond as if We Never Met Him Before. He hadn't even Settled In on the Trademark Martini Debate.

The Texas Hold'em Substitution for Bacharach is the most Glaring Misstep in the Film's Condescension to Modern Sensibilities. It Sticks Out like a Sore Eye. It is Forgivable but does Not Go Unnoticed by Purist. 21st Century Villains are of the Whimper not Bang Variety and are not Instant Word Destructors, more like World Erosioners. One Terrorist at a Time Slowly Making the Planet Uninhabitable for Decent Folks.

Daniel Craig is Rough and Rough around the Edges. He is Steely Eyed Determined and Loaded for Bear. He is Still Down to Earth and CGI Excess is Thankfully Vacant. A Great Bond Movie that can Proudly be Included with the Best of the Series. It's too Early to tell if Craig will be Iconic like Connery, but He is Certainly Fit and Fitting for Rookie Bond, James Bond. In a Moment of Introspection Bond Notes that the Double O's are Not Likely to have a Long Life Span. Of Course He is Talking about a Real-Life Agent, not of the Fictional Variety that We Need to be Immortal.
9/10
A BOND CLASSIC
didbecu17 April 2021
One of the best Bond-movies ever. The telephones look kind of ridiculous these days, but Mads Mikkelsen is definitely in this franchise one of the best vilains ever. Breathtaking from the first to the last second.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Cellphones! Cards! Cellphones!
jjamele31 August 2007
If your idea of a good movie is lots and lots of scenes of people looking at cellphone screens, people playing cards, people talking into cellphones, and people looking at cellphone screens, this is the film for you! Seriously- this is a far better than average Bond film, but if you take out all the scenes dominated by cellphones (why are they so fascinating to the producers? They are hardly glamorous technology in 2006) and card-playing (anyone else think that Mathis's narration of the game-- "there is now fifteen million in the pot....there is now one hundred million in the pot.." especially when you consider he was speaking to a TREASURY AGENT who just MIGHT be capable of ADDING was more than a little annoying?), you've got maybe forty minutes of action.

You also have to ignore a few major plot holes- the password Bond chooses is so blatantly obvious. How could the Secret Service fail to protect Bond after the game was over, and before he could transfer the money? Why wasn't the money transferred as soon as the game was over? How did LeChiffre know that Bond wouldn't' run over Vesper with his car- he barely missed her- and why didn't that tip off Bond that LeChiffre already had the account number out of her? How could Vesper spend the entire card game sitting at the bar and not bother to watch to make sure Bond's drink wasn't poisoned? Why did Bond chase that guy up the crane instead of just waiting for him to come down- did he think the bomber was going to jump into a hot air balloon and fly away at the top? I could go on, but what's the point?
9/10
Back to the basics
monstermayhem3215 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After fan complaints and critics that the Bond series sort of lost its touch with Die Another Day because of its excessive CGI usage and not enough focus on story, the 21st film in the franchise goes back to basics by rebooting the franchise showing a more inexperienced and gritter 007 before he became the agent that fans came to expect of him. I will say that Daniel Craig does a great job in his debut taking over the role from Pierce Bronsan after his 4 picture tenure in the real. He is rather physical in the role which is something that wasn't always seen that often and makes the character more grounded. Judi Dench returns from the Pierce era as M in her fifth performance. What makes Casino Royale a great return to form is showing James falling in love and his evolution into an agent.
7/10
On The Cards
writers_reign16 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With the exception of a couple of Sean Connerys I haven't seen nor had much desire to see any titles in this franchise but this one enjoyed both a good Press and good word of mouth so I gave it the old college try and found it excellent entertainment. I can only compare Craig with Connery of course and that's not unlike comparing matt paint with gloss. Where Connery was ultra smooth and sleek - and deadly with it - Craig is more a street fighter in a tuxedo. Although there were several 'action' sequences there were none of the 'gimmicks' that we've all seen in the clips on TV over the years so that 'Q' has been made redundant. There's one incongruity inasmuch as this is supposedly a fledgling Bond and we're privy to his on-the-job training yet several times we see dates on computer screens and the year is clearly 2006 as if the Producers are deliberately Denying the previous incumbents. There's also a coolness about the color photography which is light years away from the lush, well-lit Connery versions and this is in keeping with the world of John Le Carre which the film seems to be aspiring to. Entertaining, yes, Memorable, not really.
Not Just A Good Bond Movie, But A Good Movie Period.
JosephLee4113 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Joe Cool Experience: Casino Royale(2006)

Starring: Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 Eva Green as Vesper Lynd Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre Judi Dench as M

Plot: In his first major mission, James Bond is supposed to track down a terrorist and gain information on who he works for. When he fails, he has to find another way and becomes involved in a poker game at the Casino Royale with lots of money on the line. If he wins, he'll stand a good chance of capturing Le Chiffre, if he loses, the government will have directly financed terrorism. Can he succeed?

Openers: I'm a newer fan of the James Bond series. I haven't seen them all yet, and I just got into them recently. However I do enjoy the films I have seen and came into this with an open mind. I didn't care that Daniel Craig had blondish hair(really, that's a STUPID reason to not see this movie no matter how you look at it) and thought that as long as he was decent that's all we needed. Was Casino Royale up to par with the rest of the series? Read on...

The Good: I can't call him the best Bond ever(some already are) because he's only been in one movie and I still hold Sean Connery in high regard, but Daniel Craig puts in a fantastic performance as James Bond. He takes what in all rights should be a very easy clichéd role and does something with it. He gives the Bond character depth that I haven't seen before. I also felt he still had the charm that Bond normally has, only it's a bit more subtle this time around. I also liked the rest of the cast, which included Judi Dench as M and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. Both do a credible job here. This movie also has a ton of action. The first fifteen to twenty minutes alone(which consists of a chase through a construction site and an attack on an embassy) were great but then the rest of the movie flows nicely after it. The finale also gave me my money's worth, as there's a gunfight within the confines of a building that is sinking into the water! Just great. I also liked the references to the other movies that came up here and there. I loved the opening credits and the song "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell as well. Very nice.

The Bad: I hated the villain. And not in the, "he's a villain we're supposed to hate him" kind of way but I felt he was a very weak one and not a good foe for 007. I also didn't like the other random villains that suddenly appear in the last half hour. They weren't introduced at all and they are just there. The movie also runs on the long side, and some bits will feel a tad redundant at times. Yes Bond and his girl are in love, yes they have sex a lot, we GET it. Move the story along. I realize what they were trying to do and I appreciate it but we really don't need multiple love scenes to establish that point.

The Ugly: A guy cries blood. Yeah that's pretty dumb I felt. I also didn't understand why Felix Leiter was black all of a sudden. Unless this is a complete Bond relaunch and not just a prequel, how does that happen? If it is a relaunch good for them, but it just threw me off a bit.

Final Verdict: Casino Royale is not just a good Bond movie, it's a good movie period. It's a fine action movie, it does have a love story in it, and some tension involved with the gambling. Go see it if you haven't already.

Rating: **** of *****
2/10
Casino Royale a waste of time?
stormeharley5 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had to admit I was looking forward to the new Bond film. I had heard so many comments about Daniel Craig being a rubbish bond I was hoping that the film would prove them wrong, what a complete disappointment.

This is the worst bond film I have ever watched (even worse than 'on her majesty's secret service'), Daniel Craig looked out of his depth the whole film, it was slow and the delightful DBS was seen for five seconds and then was destroyed.

I own the Bond collection and have grown up watching James Bond and all that I can say is that I will not be buying this DVD for my collection. I only hope that the next one will better.
2/10
Come on Bond... what is this?
bgs161416 November 2006
This was probably the worst Bond movie ever made. I'm not going to give specifics as to why, because I don't want spoil the fun, but I suppose because it is based on the original novel, it is what it is. Just call what it is though, a really lame "Mission: Impossible". You want to hear a famous bond line, you have to wait till the end of the movie, which by the way seemed like it took FOREVER to get to. Also, 60's Dragnet with the telephone/shoe had better inventions then this film. I don't recommend seeing this. At one point, one of the major scenes in the film made me think of The Italian Job (i made an odd connection) - but it also made me think how bad this movie is compared to the Italian Job.
14 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Let me add my drop into the bucket. It's pretty good!
Quentintarantado5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've watched all the Bond movies, even the David Niven Bond and Never Say Never Again. I haven't seen that television Bond version of Casino Royale yet. I've read ALL the Fleming novels except Live and Let die.

Craig is the closest Bond to the Fleming books. It used to be Dalton, but no longer. Craig is the best Fleming Bond. The best movie Bond is still Connery, he brought a dimension you'd never see reading all the books, but Craig, he's the killer, the man who can get hurt doing spy work, the man with a cold, cruel side to him (Fleming has often been accused of sadism in his books. Bond has been poisoned, stabbed, bitten--by a barracuda).

I wasn't worried about Craig. I was more worried about Martin Campbell, the director. He did a passable Goldeneye. Like most Bond flicks it went on a bit too long, but it was okay. However, this Casino Royale, something happened to Campbell, as if he started the project with a chip on his shoulder. It's still long but it's quite energetic. I couldn't tell it was two and a half hours. Now this is my favorite of Campbell's work (even over Zorro).

As it stands against the book, I think it's actually an improvement. The book had great things going for it, the introduction of the suave spy, the tension over the gambling, the climax with the carpet beater. However I disliked the romance with Vesper, which I think was better done in this movie. It's amusing to read the moans of many of the Bond fans (probably of the films, not the books) who complain this or that wouldn't happen to Bond when actually they're taken from the book.

I recently visited the danielcraigisnotbond website and they're still in denial over everything. They think Happy Feet's victory over the box office is an indication Casino Royale is a tremendous misfire, and in two weeks, everything good about it will be forgotten.

Well, it's been three weeks, though Casino Royale is still second, its drop each week has been very, very slow. Happy Feet's victory is actually quite slim. It can be attributed to its shorter running time (allowing for more screenings in a day). Internationally, Casino beats Happy Feet and in the overall box office, Casino is earning more. Clearly, people are going to the movie to watch it and I think the anti-Craig website merely fueled curiosity and awareness for the film. The danielcraigisnotbond website is beginning to look like a cousin of the flat earth society.

I have two minor complaints against the movie. First, Eva Green looks positively lovely WITHOUT the raccoon marks around her eyes. She looks much, much better in that one scene in the bathroom before she primps for the evening.

Second, I loved the last line in the book, "Yes, WAS. The Bitch is dead." It became a throwaway in this movie. However, I do love the last scene with Mr. White. Yes, Craig has now transformed into the movie Bond we remember. Somehow, the book Bond and the movie Bond has rolled into one. And the last scene does do its work. I'm excited again to see the next James Bond movie.
7/10
Great movie just has split personality disorder
timothyhilditch2 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie has great action, great writing and great performances. But the movie has three parts it can be split into which are completely different.

The first part the action man, it has amazing action one of the best movies for it. But it's so high paced you can't follow the plot. I think I've watched this movie 4 times before but only on this viewing I figured out what was actually going on. With the plot being hard to follow it leads us into the next part.

The second part the gambler, this part is the thriller part. High stakes drama of great lines and backdoor dealings. The Casino Royale of the book. But the plot problems continue. Leading to a brilliant conclusion of this part.

Then it finishes by slowing down in the lover the final part. The great writing continues. But the constant twists in the plot muddle it up even more. Leaving a cliff hanger and the audience mostly confused about how we got here.

In summary if they combined the three personalities of Bond into one. This movie it would have been brilliant, but instead we get three Bonds one after another. You may like one part but not the others.
7/10
A New, Refreshing, James BOnd, With a thin storyline, and 15 to 20 minutes too long.
etifupleez20 November 2006
This movie... I have to admit, was more entertaining than I thought it would turn out to be.

Daniel Craig showed to be a very good James Bond... the best since Connery. He emphasized on some snappy, witty lines that were added in by one of my favorite writers, Paul Haggis.

There was a snappy, witty, ending that had the whole audience clapping, put I will leave you to see it for yourself.

Overall, my judgment of the movie is that it was thoroughly entertaining considering the thin storyline, and 15 minutes too long.

Still recommended.
10/10
Best Bond Ever!
caseynicholson9 November 2015
I'm not a connoisseur of the earliest 007 movies (Connery, Moore, etc.), but I grew up with Bond from Timothy Dalton through Pierce Brosnan, and all those movies were also exciting and fun. But "Casino Royale" is just simply the best Bond movie of my time.

Daniel Craig pulls off the role perfectly, and all the elements come into play with precision in this tour de force for the rebooting of the franchise. The action scenes are spectacular, the plot is engaging and fun, and it all builds up to an extraordinary ending.

There's really not much to critique here. The film is re-watchable, is well paced, tells its story well, and is thoroughly enjoyable. You'd have to just have a distaste for action films or spy movies not to appreciate this film--and even then it would be hard to do so.

10/10 stars!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If Daniel Craig can play James Bond, so can Eddie Murphy
bondisback20037 December 2006
Well, normally I would offer a dissected analysis of a movie, but this is not a movie, it is a high budget school production, and deserves no critique at all. There were times when I was tempted to ask the theater for my money back!!

I mean, James Bond's first car in this movie is a Ford, the guy has no class - truthfully he is one of the most crass actors I have seen in a long time. I submit that Mike Myers in Austin powers played more true to the Bond character than Daniel Craig.

Daniel Craig......Hair plugs? Go buy a clue. And someone may want to point out to him that Bond is supposed to look good in a tux, and that a He-Man image is better suited to cartoons. Actually, just from the opening scene, I could tell that Daniel Craig was going to behave like an animal just let loose from his cage, and thats exactly the characteristic he maintained the entire duration of the movie.

In short, this is an extremely poor Americanised, commercialized exploit of a once spectacular series. The polished British charm, the wit, the sophistication and the essence of the suave British agent are lost upon Daniel Craig. These are concepts that are about as foreign to him as nuclear physics is to a grade 6 student! Both the Actor and the script lack dramatically in comparison to the predecessors in the series. You are better off taking your chances with the line-up on the evenings TV viewing - missing Daniel Craig's aged and haggard face on the big screen won't leave you feeling deprived of much.

Ex-Bond Fan
7/10
Craig is Bond.
anaconda-4065825 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale (2006): Dir: Martin Campbell / Cast: Daniel Craig, Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright: Agent 007 is back in another action extravaganza about those disruptive desires that rule and wreck havoc on the heart. Based on the first Ian Fleming novel James Bond must defeat a banker who deals with terrorist organizations but the stage for battle is around a poker table where the stakes are high. It contains everything that fans love about these films although the third act seems to climax too many times creating potential endings that never happen. Martin Campbell directed Pierce Brosnan in his first 007 film Goldeneye, and here he opens the opportunity for Daniel Craig who appears to be an edgier Bond. Eva Green plays the latest Bond girl who is a decoy and hides a secret that will eventually lead to tragedy. Mads Mikkelsen plays the villain whom places Bond in one of his worst torture procedures. Like all Bond villains he believes that he has gotten away with it until the last scene emerges. Judi Dench once again portrays M but the role seems more standard issue. Jeffrey Wright plays a CIA agent who assists Bond at the poker tables. Although not the best of the franchise, it still stands as a promising work by Craig for future films. These films are generally pointless but extremely high tech heightening the stakes in action and production. Score: 7 ½ / 10
1/10
-
blackshooter-6306525 April 2020
1/10 * Weak Movie. I imagined the film to be very different. Maybe other places and much cooler fights like in the movies: Hitman, Transporter.
3 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Who are these people that liked this movie?
johnsonrausmc21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I waited through the first weekend to go see 'Casino Royale' and felt excited to go see it after friends, customers, and IMDb fans said that it was great. I'll give the movie it's opening chase scene that has some awesome parkour performers in it, but that's about it. The film declines severely from this point except for a few moments of action that accelerate the pulse of this long, boring James Bond but for a short time.

The absence of 'Q' is tangible throughout for the lack of gadgets. The most interesting gadget was a defibrillator in the glove box...

The two hours following the opening chase scene is plagued by bad acting(yes I know it's James Bond)and ridiculously unrealistic circumstances. For instance: 'Yes I know you're with a government agency that's bent on seeing me killed by Africans, but please join my card game' or 'I can follow this guy easily through as many airport check points as I want because I'm James Bond' or, how about: damn they've really taken too much time trying to build plot around this anticlimactic card game, and, of course, 'I love you!! Don't Die!!' Bad, Bad Cpr..... Bad bad Cpr..... oh well I gave it 5 seconds... I guess she's dead... amazing though I am to break a gate, scream at her while she's drowning, even though we've been in the water the same amount of time i'll carry you back to the top and not be able to help... Some great secret agent.

Finally, after all that, this tired movie and storyline end with: There's going to be more of this tired storyline.

Sigh. I liked most of the action. The acting and plot and relationships throughout the movie were boring, and in a 2 1/2 hour long movie that's 6 action sequences and two hours of filler.
10/10
You Know My Name... It's Bond, James Bond!
marcus_stokes20008 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
*Casino SPOILERS*

James Bond (Daniel Craig), who has just become a 007, after twarthing an attack to a Jumbo jet prototype and causing MI6 all kinds of embarrassments after having basically disrupted an embassy in Madagascar, is sent to Montenegro's Casino Royal to fight the evil LeChiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a french gangster who uses the profits of his organization to fund terrorism, in a poker tournament.

His aides are the sinuous and feisty Vesper (Eva Green) and the faithful Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), but are they who they say they are? And will James complete his first mission as a 00? This is the first James Bond movie I have seen, and contrary to what all those haters have said and written, I think Daniel Craig fits right in as the young James Bond; he has both the physique du role (and I have to admit that it's a mighty fine one, and even LeChiffre said so) and the slightly imperfect allure a beginner at the 'game' would have.

The music worked very well, especially the theme song 'You Know My Name' which is really great, all the actors do well, the script is very well written (and we know that in these times of remaking (badly) this is a rarity) and the director is just the icing on the cake.

I think both Bond aficionados and newcomers will appreciate this movie.

Casino Royale (2006): 10/10.
8/10
Daniel Craig debuts as Bond
Wuchakk9 October 2013
Based on Ian Fleming's novel, "Casino Royale" (2006) goes back to the beginning with James Bond (Daniel Craig) earning his 00 status with MI6. 'M' (Judi Dench) then sends Bond after a private banker who funds terrorists (Mads Mikkelsen), which leads to action in Madagascar, a poker game & romance in the Bahamas, thwarting the destruction of a prototype airliner in Miami, a high-stakes tournament at the Casino Royale in Montenegro and a thrilling finale in Venice. Caterina Murino and Eva Green also appear on the feminine front.

Craig is more rough-hewn than Pierce Brosnan and more akin to Timothy Dalton, albeit without the smirk. Craig has the gravitas to pull-off the role and is utterly convincing.

Let's face it, James Bond flicks aren't that deep. They may have convoluted plots, but there's little character depth and no heavy subtext commenting on the human condition. They're spy thrillers with an ultra-cool protagonist, beautiful women, spectacular locations, amazing gadgets, global political intrigue, gambling matches, wild action and megalomaniac villains. That's it. Yet they're very entertaining, which is why the series has been such a hit since 1962 when "Dr. No" was released.

Yet, with the exception of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969), there's very little character depth. Take James himself: Women to him are only meaningful as (1) a sexual dalliance or (2) a means to fulfill his mission. I mention this to point out how "Casino Royale" boldly changes this. The film has character depth and shows why Bond is the way he is. For instance, there are a couple amazing conversations between James and his potential woman in the story, Vesper (Eva Green), and they're full of insights. The dialog is snappy & intriguing and the performances are right-on.

By the way, someone complained that all the women in Bond flicks are loose and willing to sleep with any man at the drop of a hat. No, they're just willing to sleep with James Bond, lol. I'm not saying it's right, but it does reflect the alluring charisma of the suave Mr. Bond.

There are some thrilling action sequences, like the long, unrelenting chase at a construction site after the title credits, but there are also some quality dramatic segments. For instance, the main poker match at the titular casino is well-staged and suspenseful.

"Casino Royale" strikes me as a mixture of the first half of "Goldfinger" with the serious tone of "The Living Daylights" & "Licence to Kill." Don't expect the comic booky approach of "You Only Live Twice," the cartoonish-ness of "Diamonds are Forever" or the science-fiction (and sometimes goofiness) of "Moonraker."

The film runs 2 hours, 24 minutes, and was shot in the Czech Republic, Venice, Bahamas and England.

GRADE: A-/B+
Bond, Dead Serious Bond
newnoir20 November 2006
Man, Daniel Craig played Bond dead serious. Oh, a little humor here and there. But he took it in a totally new direction.

If I recall from the books Bond wasn't a guy with a wry sense of humor. He was a pretty serious badass.

Daniel Craig is the first Bond who looks like he could actually hurt you. I mean break you in half. Connery was tough, menacing. But nowhere near as badass as Craig. The guy is friggin' ripped.

I love Connery, Moore, Brosnan, and even the somewhat lame Dalton and Lazenby.

Connery played it tough and serious. Moore played it more charming and he was always my favorite Bond. Lazenby just did his best. And Dalton wasn't really a good fit.

Craig is without a doubt the best actor to play Bond. The one with the most range. I don't think there has been a good Bond film since Moore left the series. But Bond is back with this kickass new film. Can't say I was too jazzed about seeing Lame, uh, sorry, Dame Judi Dench back as M. M is a male character. And if this is a re imagining of the Bond series what's Dench doing back in the series? She always plays the same sourpuss role. She isn't a bad thespian just overrated.

And Martin Campbell as the director? I wasn't too thrilled that he was returning for this installment. I still haven't forgiven him for those uber lame blue screen shots of Brosnan free falling to an descending airplane at the start of GoldenEye. Play the GoldenEye game, avoid the movie. I was hoping for Christopher Nolan as Casino's director. But Marty baby more than exceeded my expectations. The theme song from this Bond flick is one of the best I've heard in years. Good show all around.

Still, there are flaws. Some of the action sequences are tepid, trite and not that interesting. Not bad but nothing spectacular like we've come to expect from past Bond's. And the final action sequence with a collapsing building descending into the sea isn't the greatest. Eva Green as Vesper Lynd though more than holds her own as Bond's counterpart. And the screenwriters maintain a good chunk of Fleming's original story in the flick.

I was a tad bummed Pierce wasn't borough back for another Bond movie. But in all honesty, I dug him as Bond but not the films he starred in. When it got to where they were giving Bond lame invisible cars. Well, it was time for him to go. Just as well, Pierce gave us one of his best film performances ever with The Matador shortly after that. Moore made one Bond film too many and should have gotten out earlier when he got a bit too weathered for the role. Fate stepped in and saved Pierce from that.

But. Casino Royale. Best Bond in a long time, baby. Nowhere near groundbreaking as Nolan's re imagining of Bats. But in the general ballpark. Ciao.
10/10
Bond is back!
MrBlonde0123 November 2006
Since the release of the new bond film, i have been receiving mixed views about the film, both from critics and from friends, so i had to go and see it for myself to find out who to believe. My conclusion is that those who said this film was anything other than brilliant are completely delusional, it was incredible, i enjoyed almost every minute of it, so, OK, i admit that they could have cut out about 20 minutes but it still did not feel like a 2 1/2 hour film. it was dark, gritty and Craig was a ruthless killer, but this is how Flemming wrote about Bond, he was as cool about killing as a surgeon. Tho only thing that i felt the movie missed was that little bit of class and style that we associate with Connery and Brosnans films (Connery more so) so if you are a fan of Bond films, (especially the earlier ones) or if you are not a fan, this film will blow you away.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Name is Bond, Without Bond
03wrulic29 November 2006
The Doctors Broccoli,Wilson Campbell and Haggis reanimated the Bond-Franchise by letting the patient die and decided to have a new baby instead...

Casino Royale is full of witty and insinuating dialogues and both action and Bondvs.Villain scenes that will be well remembered: briefly, it had all things old Bonds had and the last Brosnan-Bonds lacked of. At the same time, they're showing us things Bond has never done before - and which Bond was never considered to do, leaving the audience alone with the question if the guy on the screen actually is Bond, or if all the cleverly used dialogues/Action scenes should rather cover up the fact that Craig isn't handsome, tall and has slightly more charisma than Dalton.

The answer is easy: this guy has almost nothing in common with Connery, Moore etc and if it was not for the famous "Bond"-line we wouldn't recognize him. Why this is still a great movie? Because the way Craig portrays Bond totally makes sense. So does the whole movie by not taking place before the Cold War, by not showing us Q and Moneypenny: It's about a blunt instrument on his way to become a charming, smart but emotionally cold killing spy, and nothing else. This is a "Character-Bond" movie. And it's almost perfect, since Craig is less the traditional Bond rather than his own Bond.

...Whether Craig is really capable of conveying the image of the "Bond" we knew and loved or not, Bond 22 will show - which is necessary because once you started a character development you better bring it to an end. Otherwise this is an unfinished symphony.

Hoping the Best, this receives 9/10.
1/10
Bond. Lame Bond
dwaynedozercap2 July 2007
Movies were once an alternative to the dreariness of everyday life. Audiences queued up to escape into better worlds through characters much larger than themselves - individuals for whom they felt admiration because they were up there on the screen going places and doing things that most viewers could only envy. Leading characters were endowed with a mythos formed from the imaginations of writers, directors and actors which thrilled and enchanted viewers. Topmost among the cinematic heroes of that era was James Bond, a handsome, articulate, highly educated and thoroughly unflappable superman who could slug it out without ever being marked, engage in endless gunfights without suffering serious wounds, saunter away from nuclear explosions, make love to countless women without having to report for penicillin shots and never ever become hung up in the banal sort of problems which beset commandos and spies in real life. That was the Bond myth, which was highly successful even though or perhaps because it was, as Bertolt Brecht remarked of art, not a mirror of life but a hammer with which it's beaten into shape. Beginning with the unspeakably tedious "Die Another day," James Bond has been sadly demythologized and, to borrow a line from "Dr. No, reduced to nothing more than a stupid policeman. In this latest incarnation, Bond is further shrunk into what seems to be an even more sullen version of Mickey Spillaine's Mike Hammer and portrayed by an actor who makes us yearn for the superior talents of Ralph Meeker. Hollywood just doesn't seem to understand what we liked about James Bond before. Or perhaps Ian Fleming's World War II-inspired creation has just run out of steam by now. Maybe it's time he were laid to rest beside Harry Palmer, Matt Helm and Derek Flint. Otherwise he may become an even an even greater embarrassment to himself in his dotage.
6/10
Time for a change
Okonh0wp11 September 2007
The 20th Bond installation of Die Another Day was more of a celebration that the franchise had lasted 40 years than it was a look to the future of the Bond franchise. In other words, there was never really much of a continuation point from Die Another Day planned by the franchise and which viewers would have liked seeing. By that time, it seemed, we were getting sick of some things about James Bond: How he never bleeds and always gets the right cards and the right gadgets at the right time.

This new installment of the Bond franchise is a film with trade-offs. The biggest, of course, is that it is refreshing to see Bond bleed, Bond lose a hand of cards, Bond be wrong, and Bond actually fall in love. At the same time, some of the familiar elements of Bond are missing and there's something that's lost when that happens. There's no Moneypenny, no villainous girl, and especially Q. Bonds toys don't really look like Q's gadgets, they just look like those high-end gizmos you find in your skymall catalogue. I'm not sure which version of Bond I like better, but maybe it was the right time for a change. It also helps that James Bond is played by an Oscar-caliber actor (he hasn't won an Oscar yet, but he could easily win one in between James Bond films, he got buzz for Munich and Infamous and was also in Road to Perdition) who could go way above and beyond Bond if need be. Pierce Brosnam never seemed to be more than an action hero, and his best roles outside of Bond, After the Sunset and Matador, are notable only because they parody his action hero type.
5/10
Craig is great ... But the movie isn't
boyd195522 March 2007
Daniel Craig is definitely the best Bond since Connery ... Mainly because he can act ... Which is something that the others were just incapable of ... They were just churning out the old caricature, and it was really tiresome ... Craig brings the character bang up to date Of course that is all well and good ... Craig will do some Bonds and go on to bigger ( and MUCH better ) things ... The fact is, the whole concept of Bond is completely past its sell by date ... The structure is so outdated it is untrue ... People still seem to go and see them out of habit ... But really this film was rather dull ... And the villain was a complete waste of space ... This is the best Bond for ages ... But the fact is time and cinema have moved on
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond grows up
db_in_uk5 December 2006
Admittedly, I have never been a big Bond fan. Increasingly, the films are trite and childish. Bond is nothing more than an action superhero who can never be beaten. His character is nothing more than a caricature that is 2 dimensional and forced to go through the same mundane action sequences without consequence.

Enter the new Bond. A Bond film with a 3 dimensional character! One that has (aghast) feelings, one that gets bruised, one that has the suave Bond touch but a whole array of character underneath.

In spite of the odd flickering of old Bond habits (especially in the character Mathis), the film works and works well. Well done to those involved in putting together a decent script with actors who can act beyond pinup status.

This Bond is for grown ups.
1/10
DISSAPPOINTED. HYPED
shubhamcritic22 August 2020
Nothing extraordinary..way too overrated. One can easily avoid this
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond re-thought for the twenty-first century
JamesHitchcock18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I reviewed the Timothy Dalton Bond film "Licence to Kill", I mentioned the curious parallels between the Bond movies and the TV series "Dr Who". Both started in the early sixties, and enjoyed considerable success throughout the sixties, seventies and early eighties. In both cases, the series extended by having a succession of actors play the main character, and both series seemed to go into a decline in the late eighties, appearing to come to an end in the same year, 1989.

Both formulae were revived in the mid-nineties, with greater success in the case of Bond than of the Doctor. Although Pierce Brosnan's first three Bond films aroused much more interest than did Paul McGann's "Doctor" movie, by the time of "Die Another Day"- a tired rehash of used Bond plots- the franchise was in trouble again. There was so much recycling going on it should have been awarded the Oscar for Most Ecologically Friendly Script.

When "Dr Who" was revived in 2005, I was surprised by the casting. I could not imagine Christopher Eccleston, a gritty, working-class actor from the English North-West, in the role. In fact, both Eccleston and the revived series proved to be a great success. I was equally surprised by the casting of Daniel Craig, another gritty, working-class actor from the English North-West, as Pierce Brosnan's successor. Much of the speculation as to who would get the part had centred upon Clive Owen and Jason Statham. While Owen made a disappointing action hero in "King Arthur", I was impressed by Statham in the otherwise unimpressive "The Transporter", thinking him a hero worthy of a better film. Craig, however, proves to be as successful in this role as Eccleston was in his.

The film is set right at the beginning of Bond's career, his first mission after achieving his "OO" status. This should have made it a sixties period piece, set immediately before "Dr No", but is clearly set in the present day. (There has never been much attempt at continuity between the Bond films). Bond is assigned to pursue Le Chiffre, a corrupt banker providing financial services to terrorists. Bond frustrates a plan by Le Chiffre to destroy a prototype airliner and thereby to make a financial killing by depressing the shares of the company that built it. This failed scam was financed using funds embezzled from a ruthless Ugandan rebel group, who want their money back. To repay the Ugandans, and thus save his life, Le Chiffre needs to win it back in a poker game. It falls to Bond to try and stop him, with the aid of a beautiful secret agent named Vesper Lynd. The title is derived from the casino in Montenegro where the game is played. (Incidentally, it should be "Casino Royal", "casino" being a masculine noun in French).

The one thing that links this film to the Brosnan era is the presence of Judi Dench as Bond's superior "M". Some of the Bond traditions have been retained. There are chase sequences (the "free running" sequence through the building site was particularly hair-raising), the familiar music, the specially written theme song, the beautiful Bond girl and the exotic locations, in this case Madagascar, the Bahamas, Venice and what was supposed to be Montenegro. (The part of Montenegro was played by the Czech Republic, which made me wonder why they didn't simply set the film, as well as shoot it, in that country).

In other respects, the producers have gone back to basics, rethinking the franchise for the twenty-first century. The big difference between "Casino Royale" and most earlier Bond films is that it is much more serious and less flippant in tone. Gone is John Cleese's "Q" character with his array of gadgets (no bad thing). Gone are the witty quips and one-liners in which Brosnan and Roger Moore used to specialise. Gone are the fantastic plots, which always seemed to revolve around a mad tycoon with ambitions for world domination. Craig's Bond is a hard man doing a hard job, perhaps even harder than Connery's original Bond. Although the plot does not quite qualify as social realism, it is a lot more realistic than most Bond films, tapping into modern concerns about terrorism.

In the past I always took the view that the Bond franchise depended upon a balance between excitement and tongue-in-cheek humour. When the balance was upset, by sliding either into excessive jokiness (some of Roger Moore's outings) or into excessive seriousness ("Licence to Kill") the result was generally a less-than-successful film. "Casino Royale", however, succeeds where "Licence to Kill" failed. Bond may be a hard man, but he remains sympathetic and retains our interest. One reason is that whereas Timothy Dalton in "Licence to Kill" was simply out for personal revenge (leading "M" to revoke his licence), Craig's Bond remains onside. He wants to stop Le Chiffre's schemes, but not for selfish personal motives. On the contrary, he believes passionately in his cause - the fight against terrorism and those who support it. (Very much a cause for the twenty-first century).

Craig also receives good support from Eva Green as Vesper, which means that the downbeat ending works better than it did in "OHMSS", the only previous Bond film to attempt something similar. In that film, there was so little chemistry between George Lazenby and Diana Rigg that I was left not caring about what happened to either of them. In this case, the relationship between Craig and Green is much more complex- initial dislike warming into respect and finally love, before the sudden, shocking denouement.

When I reviewed "Tomorrow Never Dies", I said that Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery. On the basis of "Casino Royale", Daniel Craig might just be the best Bond, full stop. 8/10
5/10
Did u guys watch another film than me?
Karl-Heinz_Ruediger_Otto30 November 2006
I watched the film in cinema last week .... boah why did i spent my hard earned $$ on that crap? Can't say that much about the new bond actor ... but the plot was bad, the ads were even more subtle than in the last ones (e.g. the boring driving around in that stupid Ford mondeo) If u love the old bonds then don't go watch this one :(.

I hope the next one is better so we (or at least I) can judge the performance of the new actor better.

Seems like i'm one of the few which don't like the movie ... well doesn't matter :)

btw. The 10 lines min. somehow suxxs
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond 21 goes where no other dares - half the time
rick_78 April 2010
I don't really get Bond. I always want these spy yarns to be like The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and of course they never are - and never could be. So, having been duped time and again by promises of a back-to-basics approach (back to which basics - Dr. No?!), with earthy combat and psychological complexity (that was the sell for For Your Eyes Only and countless others), I decided to sit at home and count my gold, rather than spanking it on Daniel Craig's debut outing as 007. That says something about my judgement, as this belated viewing marks it out as the best Bond I've seen: intriguing and visceral, with the welcome stain of realism marking its more impressive moments.

A great, tough opening scene in monochrome sets the tone, with footage of Craig staking out an MI6 office intercut with snippets of a grisly kill in a public toilet. It's then offset by a largely idiotic credits sequence that looks like a spoof - and you wonder which of these two polar opposites is going to set the tone for the film. Actually, it's both, with bracing action sequences and fragments of fascinating characterisation spliced with superficial villainy and the usual tiresome fetishising of cars and planes. The first full action sequence is an absolute wow: gritty and exhilarating, as Bond pursues a bombmaker through the Ugandan bush (not a euphemism), past an industrial estate, up a crane and then into an embassy packed with gun-toting militia men. It ends with our hero completely losing the plot, prompting this pithy exchange with M (Judi Dench). Her: "You're supposed to display some kind of judgement." Him: "I did. I thought that one less bombmaker in the world was a good thing." Then we're into the story proper, with 007 being pitched against middle management criminal and blood-weeping card sharp Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game. Also along for the ride is treasury accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) - who's surely so-named so he can do jokes about riding her, which doesn't happen.

Happily, while the film is essentially about cards, it knows that card games don't work on screen, so brief clips of the contest are alternated with punchy action and suspense sequences, each with a twist in the telling. There's also some sensitive interplay between Craig and Green that recalls the series' (few) emotional highpoints, but is undermined by slack writing, since the relationship isn't really explained by the action we see, the character development happening in jumps. Despite that, and the fact he runs like Forrest Gump, I think Craig is the best Bond we've seen - without the objectionable smugness of most other 007s. That self-satisfaction is replaced by an ambiguity that make the character much more interesting, even if such complexity isn't ramped up quite enough. His is also the first (J)A(ME)S BO(ND) to get an electronic tag, a sign of just how naughty he is in this film. A deft, intelligent score by David Arnold adds to the feel of this worthwhile, welcome reinvention of Bond which - for all its flaws - is hopefully a sign of things to come. So how come everyone says Quantum of Solace is rubbish?
This Movie Sucked on ICE!!! here is why. A few semi spoilers
f267818 November 2006
1. James bond films and all good action usually require a good chase sequence. I'm sorry but the old hanging off the top of a truck thing has been done since the keystone cops days and Much Much better, Indiana Jones, Mad Max, Abbot & Costello, Beverly Hills Cop, etc. That chase scene sucked. As did the 23 second car chase that ended when James tried to avoid his girlfriend.

2. The opening chase was okay but there was nothing emotionally driving it you know? It just sort of happened, see the movie B-13(?) maybe 14 can't remember but that was fluid and joyful but still a chase scene. This was just I don't know okay.

2. D. Craig was great and has the potential to be a great bond. But this film sucked, The direction was awful. I don't know about you but I didn't have to know how to play bacarrat in the early S Connery films but still there was tension created. The Texas Hold Em scenes were ridiculous, with the Giannini commentary " That's his tell...." " that means the stakes are 12 million..." whatever totally dumb. Boring No tension.

3. Bond films always have a great moment where they exact revenge... Le Cheffre was killed by others after repeatedly banging the guy in his nuts we the audience really needed to see the revenge. The final revenge of a character hardly introduced just doesn't cut it.

4. The opening black and white scene was drawn out and frankly boring. If you want to see Brutal cold hard killing please see Dr. No, when Connery kills the guy in cold blood in the same way but it has an added Hickock like tension. (This director sucks)

5. Terrible opening sequence, Bad crappy song. Chris Cornell has lost all hard, cool credibility with this one lame, forgettable theme. The graphics blew... uninteresting.

6. I know, I know, it's the origin of the character but to not have the theme till the final moment is unforgivable. The theme is bond. It needs to be there not some generic music during action sequences. Come on. it's like doing a remake of the Wizard of Oz without "Were off to see the Wizard, or Somewhere over the R...."

6. Bond placed a tracking device in Le Chefre's Inhaler and it was left on the table but he was able to track Le Chefre during his girlfriend almost getting her arm cut off. Do the producers think we are stupid.

7. The girlfriend relationship was pretty cool but almost undercooked, I swear to god there was more emotional depth and loss between Lazenby and Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty's Sercret Service.

8. Maybe my biggest complaint. Bond not reacting to near death experiences. What mad Connery and some of the others so good was the sense of real danger. There were so many scenes of Craig not even flinching when a guy was shooting like 200 rounds at him while he was hiding behind a pillar. No reaction from Craig, No reaction from me. Come on. I know, I know he's cold blooded but give me a break. It separates us from the experience.

I swear I can go on and on. Please don't think I'm being too hard but I really had high hopes with all the hype that this was back to the old brutal but suave bond.... it just is more of the same with a new much more bond like character. If this is the first one out of the box, the other ones are going to be gadgets and crappy quips galore.
Enough of experimentation. Get back the formula please!
greywindz19 October 2011
I had been a great fan of James Bond since my childhood, so naturally after returning from my University project, when I grabbed the DVD of "Quantum of Solace"...I was excited. Well ironically watching this one left me with frustrations of gargantuan proportions. No whiz gadgets, no debonair style, no sarcastic witty sardonic humour, (how disgusting...Bond without sense of humour), no signature tune or intro walking style, no larger than life villains, that makes this franchisee so out of the worldly and different from other spies, say Jason Bourne, Xander Cage, or Ethan Hunt...even the Bondettes were irritatingly unimpressive...when compared to the likes of Halle Berry or Famke Janssen.

For me, movies are essentially divided in two types, the timepass ones, and the thought provoking ones. I mean let's get this straight, we don't walk inside a movie hall to see a grim looking Bond reflecting over high philosophies, almost comparable to a hero of the pre-first world war obscure Russian novels. Bond is the cold matter of fact eyes of Connery, the wit and sense of humour of Moore, and the classy act of Brosnan...for us Bond is essentially the universally recognised, super suave super spy, who can save the world without getting his shirt bloodied, or his nose smashed, and who doesn't have to do "Bollywood" action defying all laws of gravity. Just imagine, Connery or Moore or Brosnan coming out of a scooba diving suit, in a tuxedo..."SMOOVE"...and what do we get here? An unsmiling, overboil, grimy, renegade Bond, fighting hand to hand like a petty street fighter...

Enough of experimentation...now bring back the formula again!
9/10
Great, Great Movie!
martimusross12 January 2022
Casino Royale

Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond in keeping with Ian Flemings characterisation.

It really had all the key elements that make Bond, Bond, humour, style sophistication, drama, incredible set pieces, gizmos, incredible cars and uncompromising masculinity and Judi Dench lol.

This franchise has lost its way in his following movies by stealth kowtowing to those who believe that by changing the key and fundamental elements you will still be left with a Bond movie and a Bond audience. As with all things "modern" if you want a mixed race female M16 agent then write a script and invent a character, don't destroy an existing invention thinking it needs reforming or reinventing.

Daniel Craig is a great actor who brings an intensity to the role, it is no new spin as he likes to insist, just a glance at Live and Let Die shows very similar scenes. Ava Green of course was perfect for role as was the pure evil of Mads Mickelson.

I'm giving this a firm 9 outta 10, a modern classic of our time.
10/10
Bond is back and he is human!
wrenster16 November 2006
The lights went down on the early 10am screening this morning. One advert advising viewers to switch off their phones (bring back the stars trying to sell dodgy scripts) and we were off. A black and white MGM and Columbia logo and I held my breath. But where was the Bond theme? The walking into shot, turn and shoot? The one thing that signals a brand new adventure of the world's greatest action hero. But this is a very different Bond altogether. This is definitely Bond Begins. And I'm happy to say it works.

So it does miss that sense of familiarity. Instead we get a black and white sequence in which Daniel Craig shows that this isn't the cool, sophisticated Bond we have all grown up and loved for so long. This is a more ruthless, clumsy creature. Once we get to see his two kills allowing him to become a double-O, we start entering a more familiar area. An impressive title sequence (with an air of sixties kitch and a not-too-memorable theme tune) and we get to see Bond running, jumping and fighting in a building site in Africa. And what a sequence. Just what any Bond fan wants. A heart-stopping sequence that goes on forever and yet keeps the tension going throughout. And we see that Craig is a very athletic Bond indeed (apart from the odd moment when you can see the join between him and stuntman), we are no longer in CGI territory here. We have real men risking their necks in the cause of spectacle. This is the start of the complex plot.

Within the first hour we have action sequence number two, set in an airport. Again, breathtaking stuff (I won't spoil it), and then the plot really kicks in as hour two begins. This is what really makes this a newly defined Bond movie. There is very little action at all. The occasional flash of violent fight scenes but a lot of dialogue. We finally get to know more about the man. What makes him tick. How he feels. And how emotions towards another could put him in peril. Bond has finally become a human being. He bleeds like we all do. He hurts like we all do, both physically and emotionally. This is a man who still has all the elements that us men want: he's tough, rough and cool as ice, but he also has a heart that could be his downfall.

We then head towards the home straight. A fairly cringing torture scene (with cuts!) and an amazing ending, with the final bow including what we have longed for throughout. That music and that line.

When Craig was announced as the replacement of Mr Brosnan, I have to admit I was a little unsure, but I can forget those early days. He is terrific. He has made Bond a person, no longer an entity. He acts the role, and doesn't just walk through it. His feelings towards Vesper (the stunningly beautiful Eva Green) is very reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Bond relationship with Tanya (the only difference is that Craig can act, whereas Lazenby...) Sure it has the girls, the locations, the car (and a lack of gadgets, but that's not such a bad thing). But what it does have is heart. It's violent, but no longer in a comic book way. The one liners are there, but not thrown into every situation. And they have managed to make a game of Texas Hold 'Em Poker seem exciting and glamorous.

It may not be every Bond fans cup of tea, and it might be accused of being too deep (probably from the Roger Moore fans) but I loved every minute of it. Bond has been re-invented and Daniel Craig is the new King. Long Live The King!
10/10
OMG!!!! best bond so far
Jericho11389 February 2007
wow this guy blows them all away, ex. Sean Connery. But OMG!!!!!!!!!!! Daniel Craig, fantastic. His acting, face, and his eyes do it all. but i think it's good that they found some1 who actually had the body to do the physical stunts that he did in this film. But not only is this actor the best, this has got to be the bet Bond movie. In a good way; it was soo different. In camera angles, his relationship with the women, how he operated, and how he could really kick the living crap out of people. I just think that this is the best Bond actor/movie yet. You might disagree with me but you're entitled to your opinion. but just let it be known that you have to see this movie!!!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"I need to take your ego out of the equation".
drunk-drunker-drunkest14 March 2007
This is the third interpretation of Fleming's Casino Royale novel (with both the woeful 1967 Feldman spoof and a lesser-known 1950's TV special with Barry Nelson as 007 coming before it) and the twenty-first "official" Bond outing. As such, you could have been forgiven for judging Barbara Broccoli's promise to deliver a fresh, new Bond into a fresh, new franchise with more than a little scepticism. But, amazingly, it wasn't all press junket hype; Casino Royale really does deliver a much-needed shock right to the heart of the ailing series.

Most of the pre-release press attention centred on the unsuitability of Daniel Craig for the 007 role. Apparently he was afraid of heights, couldn't drive a manual gearbox, had never played poker and, most alarmingly of all, was blonde. These stories may or may not have been true, I don't know, but I do know, blonde or not, Craig is perfect for Bond. This Bond, anyway. This isn't the same quick-witted schmoozer of Brosnan and Moore fame, smirking playfully behind the ubiquitous martini. Here is a Bond who somehow hasn't quite discovered how to disguise the brutality of his work behind those all-important tailored tuxedos. He is rarely genuinely charming, and is often not very nice at all. Right from the opening scene, a violent and visceral assassination in a grimy toilet, the audience can be left in no doubt that this is a different Bond. A more violent man for a more violent world, and one which Brosnan and the like could never have convincingly delivered.

The story opens with completely new material, including a spectacular "parkour" inspired set-piece through a building site and a chase to stop a terrorist destroying a new airliner. From here on in, the script follows the novel fairly closely, following a high stakes poker game. The film cleverly capitalises on the recent interest in poker to fully exploit the technicalities of the game that would previously have been double-dutch to most of us. It is here that we really begin to focus in on Bond and see behind the smarmy one-liners and Omega watches. We get to know his tells. As he says later, "I have no armour left".

Casino Royale is a Bond film that is, for once, more about Bond, the man himself, than the usual array of guns, gadgets and girls.

Oh, and thank god they didn't accept Quentin Tarantino's ludicrous offer to make an R-rated Bond revenge film. Kill Bill in an Aston Martin? No thanks.
10/10
BEST BOND film ever!
okrita22 November 2006
Positively the BEST BOND Film ever! I so thoroughly enjoyed a MAN doing all the necessary spy deeds without the benefit of all the tech gadgets and silly comments. And WHAT a MAN! I find myself trying to remember what I loved about all the others! Daniel Craig was the perfect fit for this role and I can't wait to see more of his Bond. I've seen this 3 times since it opened Friday and will see it again with my family tomorrow. I'm a 43 year old woman for crying out loud! The action is plenty and Craig is plenty believable. I didn't even notice he was blond - what was that all about? Trust me, it's worth every penny and all the hype.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Simply the best
mushbuster20 November 2006
I began this series with Goldfinger as a youth in Lubbock, Texas, and was knocked out. Before yesterday, I thought From Russia With Love was the truest to the Fleming novel of all the Bonds, with Dalton's Licence to Kill coming a close second.

Then I saw Casino Royale. This is the Bond that fans of the novels have waited for and it doesn't disappoint. It's truer to Ian Fleming's vision than any of the previous films: dark and violent, with richly detailed characters.

Sean Connery can exhale at last: the crown has found a new and worthy successor in Daniel Craig. He's at least as good as Connery and possibly better, inasmuch as his is a three-dimensional portrayal with no hint of smirky condescension to the role (which, generally speaking, broadened to the point of parody with Connery's successors--Timothy Dalton being the lone exception).

I take issue with those snobby reviewers who dismiss the plot as an excuse for the action set pieces; this time it's essential, and takes a clean, logical course from the first jaw-dropping chase to the tragic conclusion. The action is spectacular, but I was just as involved by the story.
7/10
Meet the new Bond...
Lejink30 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
007 out of 10 that is! An obviously big budget feature, attempting to take its place in the lineage of one of cinema's longest running franchises as well as show a thing or two to contenders-not-pretenders such as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne series. And while it succeeds in the former, it doesn't for me cohere well enough to outstrip the latter. Dealing with the history first, there are some nice reference points such as the exotic locations, (here prominently taking in author Fleming's old hunting ground, the Bahamas), the introduction to Felix Leiter of the CIA and of course the beautiful "Bond-Girl" women, although the sex scenes seem toned down, perhaps for the censor perhaps just a statement of intent to eschew frippery. The in-jokes are cute and worth watching for; the fact that the famous Bond tuxedo is picked for him by a woman, the nonchalance displayed over Bond's trademark, "shaken, not stirred" Martini, the Aston Martin and the ending on the famous "Bond, James Bond" announcement. It was also good to see Bond up against an everyday sadistic, high-rolling villain rather than a "rule the world" Blofeld type - certainly realism is in, cartoonery out - there are only a couple of humorous quips here to echo the early Connery's delivery (until the gadgets took over)...and yet the whole doesn't quite catch in my view. For example compare the lengthy running chase early on between Bond and his assassin protagonist to the similar scene in "The Bourne Ultimatum" and there's really no comparison in terms of action, stunt-invention and thrill-making - Bourne wins hands down. Also making an over-lengthy poker game the fulcrum of the action (am I the only person who has no interest in this over-rated past-time/sport - the new "rock and roll" my eye!) slows the action down far too much. What action there is, and there are healthy doses, is fine, some of the effects excellent, particularly the climax to the earlier referred-to chase, high up on construction cranes and the demolition of a Venetian warehouse at the climax but I also found the acting suspect. It was also strange to view a prequel to a 1962 movie with completely up to date gadgetry, talk about lack of continuity. Daniel Craig is more craggy than handsome as Bond, but again this is going the right way, in my view, taking us back to the machismo Connery prototype. He's fine in the terseness stakes but lapses into Lazenby territory when required to get emotional over the death of Vesper for example. Mads Mikkelson as Chiffre does a reasonable sub-Christopher Walken turn but doesn't quite seem vicious enough - indeed his guerrilla paymasters are far more violent in his pursuit. All told though, now that introductions and exposition are out of the way, let's hope that the next instalment ups the ante just as "From Russia With Love" did when succeeding "Dr No" all those years ago.
9/10
A Bond for Adults
friend_of_harry_lime15 August 2007
Casino Royale shows us what Bond can be when filmmakers don't pander to the lowest common dominator of the viewing public.

This is a serious story, and thankfully gone in this film are the stupid, insulting bimbos, (Miss Goodnight) the loony gadgets (disappearing "stealth" cars), the insipid villains, (Drax, Jaws) and best of all a mugging, joking, wisecracking Bond (thank you Mr. Moore for nearly killing the whole thing off).

The films sticks fairly close to the novel, and Craig's image hits just the right note as a Bond who at some level is very much bothered not by what he has to do, but the awareness of what it might do to him.

Refreshing too is the fact that the film treats its audience as adults rather than a collection of overgrown children, though judging from some of the trite reviews here, this adult version of Bond is lost on some.

Looking forward to the next entry in the series.
10/10
There's a new Bond on the block...
annabrownie5 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bond franchise has provided some of the most entertaining movies ever made, but recent outings for 007 have been less than stellar. Barbara Broccoli and co have re-invented the series again, thanks to direction from Martin Campbell (who re-made Bond for the 90s with Goldeneye) and borrowing from the Bourne films to create a real 21st Century Bond, even though this is meant to be an origins story. Just as Chris Nolan and Christian Bale rejuvenated Batman in Batman Begins, so Campbell and Daniel Craig have done the same for Bond.

Which brings me neatly to my next point. Many people, Bond fans or otherwise, were very vocal in their concerns about whether Daniel Craig would make a good Bond. All those doubts must have laid to rest within the first minutes of the pre-credits sequence, and certainly by the time of the free-running chase. Craig's Bond is more physically intimidating than Bond has ever been, and the film's fight scenes are more brutal, more physical, in consequence. Thanks, perhaps, to Jason Bourne, the filmmakers are not afraid to show a bruised and battered Bond, something which has rarely been seen, thanks to his apparent ability to dodge all bad guys. This is a return to the colder, more raw, perhaps less sophisticated personality of Bond as he was in Dr No - Bond as Fleming intended him.

The film's bad guys are very well drawn, three-dimensional villains, and the threat here is that of well-funded terrorism rather than a megalomaniac trying to destroy/take over the world. Mads Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is superbly chilling though ultimately cowardly. He is the prime villain of the movie, but there is someone behind him who we do not properly encounter until the end of the film, setting the stage for the new film, Quantum of Solace.

The women in the film are more three-dimensional than many Bond girls, particularly Eva Green's captivating Vesper Lynd, with her intelligence, spirit and shadowed motives. Her verbal sparring with Bond when they first meet is superb and funny.

The action set pieces are not as prominent as they have been in recent years, although they are still spectacular. Additionally, Bond's reliance on gadgets has been considerably reduced - his Aston Martin contains a life support kit and storage for his Walther, but little more. The car chase from the casino out into the countryside, complete with record-breaking, seven spin, death-defying roll off the road, is thrilling and not overly long.

The film ends with the true emergence of Bond, strengthened and cynical thanks to his experience in this story (not least a torture scene that had every male in the cinema cringing), and ready to take on the upper hierarchy of villains previously represented by Le Chiffre.

This is an excellent film, well written, well shot and very well acted. Craig's Bond harks back to the older, pre-gadgets movies like Dr No and From Russia With Love, but also has something new for the 21st Century. This is the best Bond movie in a long time, and sets the bar for Craig's next outing, which I await with pleasure and anticipation.
8/10
I've lost my Bond virginity and I don't know what took me so long
Robert_duder18 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's true...I am 28 years old and I have never laid eyes on a Bond film...well until now of course. I had decided some time ago when they picked Daniel Craig as the latest Bond that I would go see it on the big screen and I am really glad I finally took that chance on Bond because James Bond is the spy of all spies just like everyone has always said he was. Now granted I do understand that Casino Royale is perhaps not the average Bond film and this is an all new Bond but I still thought Craig was downright brilliant. I will make it my mission to see every Bond film and decide for myself who is James Bond. As of right now Craig is my Bond hands down and for good reason. Casino Royale is complex, and even now I'm a little confused by the entire plot and the ending and yet it doesn't matter much because Craig was such an incredible screen presence, and the action was terrific, the opening scenes were brutal and captivating and the direction was amazing from Poker Games to gun battles.

Of course as everyone knows now Mr. Daniel Craig takes the role as Agent 007 James Bond. Now this is a prequel to any other Bond film and Bond has just received his 00 status and his license to kill. I never realized that Bond was so much a hit man, basically a suave, seducing, killer. I never pictured him as that brutal or heartless but he really is. Craig's Bond is also sassy and rough around the edges and very cold and calculating, smart but also a little cocky and foolish in some places which isn't a Bond characteristic I didn't think. Craig is still a sure fire box office hit!! Eva Green is the latest Bond girl and she fits the bill. She's sexy, sultry and still knows how to kick some ass. Her performance at times is a little dry and could use some heart but for the most part she does well and her and Craig are decent together although not exactly ideal. Mads Mikkelsen plays the deliciously evil Bond villain Le Chiffre and Craig and Mikkelsen makes terrific adversaries and have some intense moments that are more dramatic and about eye contact and body language than actual contact. Mikkelsen is devilish and looks evil but plays the part well. Dame Judi Dench also returns adding her truly majestic class to the cameo role of Bond's boss "M." Her clever and intelligent banter with Bond is key to the film.

A little bit campy, a little bit overblown, a little bit dark, a little bit funny...I think this is the Bond formula, am I wrong?? If that is the case then Casino Royale fits the bill and knocks one out of the park. It wasn't a perfect film, I wasn't exactly blown away by my first entry into the Bond series but I still couldn't deny the film's presence and importance. Director Martin Campbell returns to the Bond franchise, having previously directed Goldeneye and he is no stranger to action or thriller which I found Bond to be more of a thriller than an action film despite some truly astounding and random explosions. I think that Bond fans will absolutely die over Casino Royale and I think if you are like me and have never bothered to enter into the Bond franchise, this is your chance to see a truly great action star make way into the world of Hollywood in a Bond film that further cements it's importance in cinema history. 8.5/10
People are raving about this because they're so relieved it doesn't stink
nickcgardner21 November 2006
Craig is outstanding and the film is worth seeing for him alone. M plays Bond brilliantly and as a friend of mine said, Dench is actually playing M for the first time. Green is passable, Mikkelson is good and justifies his retirement from Formula 1 a few years back (F1 in joke).

The movie has a fair stab at staying faithful to the novel and I hope the franchise stays in this direction. In the case of Casino Royale, it means the pacing is weird, but. To say more would constitute a spoiler. However, I am sure that even as I type, The Simpsons script writing team are working on an episode showing how many entertaining interruptions you can put in a card game to make it interesting. Incidentally the film (unlike Fleming) assumes we know the rules of the game. Very lazy. Cowardly and forgivable, but lazy nonetheless.

However.

Most of the action is Bond by numbers, uninspiring and at times, largely during the climax, the storytelling of the action seems poorly thought out and tricky to follow. No, not because it's fast or because of the editing - just because it's unclear in depicting what's happening.

Worse.

It's dull. Spectacular but lacking in the visceral gutsy feeling of films by newbies, such as Crank.

The franchise needs new blood at the helm, or at least a fundamental rethink of how to make Bond style action sequences relevant and exciting.

Craig carries the movie, convinces and makes you (well me,anyway,) care.

And why, why,why does Arnold blow his Bond song writing debut with the dullest most forgettable Bond song ever? Truly bizarre.

Robert Altman R.I.P. And thanks for the memories.
Saw this way back when...
Red_Identity18 May 2013
I saw this back when it came out, when I was just barely a teenager. Rewatching it I certainly appreciated it more and I think it's as adult- oriented as a Bond film can be. I definitely think it's better than Quantum, which I just saw for the first time, and on the same level as Skyfall. It's certainly the most well-paced one, and the opening 20 minutes are extremely riveting and suspenseful, everything a film like this should be. There aren't many complaints to be had, and Eva Green is also fantastic here. She lights up the screen. Perhaps Craig wasn't as comfortable with the role here and he certainly gets better as his films go along, but you can't go that much better than this.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
By My Estimation, the Best Bond Ever
thebrainflow20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
People have been weird about stressing that perhaps Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever. Since everyone knows that Connery was the best, but thinking back, I never truly rooted for Bond, not under Connery. I liked him, true enough, with the confident swagger, easy smiles, effortless athletic feats, but I never cared what happened to him, because he wasn't human. He was a super hero. Daniel Craig touches Bond with something no one has seen in a 007 movie, he gives him mortality. His brutish, often scary persona is so different from the Bonds before that I believed everything he did and felt. Craig, though not as attractive a man as any of the other incarnations, has a face that is hard to take your eyes from. His electric blue eyes are magnetic and he has the hulking form of a trained fighter, unlike Brosnon's lithe Cat-like physique. Enough about Craig, Martin Campbell, who directed the great last send-up, Goldeneye, comes back and takes the whole franchise the absolute basics. Thankfully, there are no Q's or MoneyPenny's to annoy the more intelligent audience members, and no invisible car! It may take another film for the nay-sayers to felt it proved, but this Bond (is better than any others.) Eat that.
8/10
Finally an approach to classic Bond movies
janallendorf25 November 2006
When i went to see this movie, i did not really know what to expect! Afer having seen the last Bond movies, i was not expecting much, only a another "Bond" movie, overloaded with very exaggerated scenes.

I was totally surprised by this movie! It is so much different from the last, the Pierce Brosnan movies. It is not a perfect, flawless Bond movie, but still it is a change towards the original James Bond essence.

This movie is about James Bond turning into Double 0 agent and I believe, that Daniel Craig accomplished this takes very well. It is not the same James Bond known form the other movies, i think he lacks a certain charm and his sarcastic humor. But that is no problem, as i see this as an evolution of his character and these are only supposed to be his first steps as a double 0 agent. The action scenes are great, and convincing; they fit perfectly in the Bond reality and are not as unrealistic as they have been lately( especially in : Die another day)

What I really did not enjoy was the Sony product placement. A Sony mp3-player, several Sonyericsson cell-phones, a Sony Vaio laptop and a Sony camera have their appear in the movie way too much. I was also missing Q, who wasn't in the movie.

But the rest was just great: Exotic locations, as well as classic Bond sceneries in Europe, the casinos, two nice Aston Martins...
Daniel Craig's James Bond Is Here To Stay. Deal With It.
CinemaClown8 December 2014
Truth be told, the only James Bond films that I've seen in full are the ones starring Daniel Craig in the iconic role. Confession be made, I have no interest at all in checking out the previous instalments of this franchise for whatever bits n pieces I've seen of earlier chapters never intrigued me enough to sit through all of it. And since this film takes the series back to its origin, I don't see any need to give those films another chance, at least for now.

Establishing a new timeline that has no relation whatsoever with any previous Bond movies, Casino Royale is a complete reboot of James Bond franchise that discards the CGI heavy plot & ridiculously over-the-top action of the previous entries to restart the series by reinventing the character of James Bond and, with its grounded portrayal of events set in 21st century & emphasis on realism during its action sequences, begins the new era of 007 on a rousing high.

Opening with an exquisitely crisp black-n-white prologue that shows Bond earning his license to kill, Casino Royale covers James Bond's first ever mission as Agent 007 that requires him to stop a terrorist financier named Le Chiffre from winning in a high-stakes poker game. Already berated by M for his inability to properly address the situation before acting on it, Bond enters the tournament he can't afford to lose for it would result in government to have directly financed terrorism.

Directed by Martin Campbell, the first in the new era of Bond films is a highly polished spy- thriller that delivers on all fronts to succeed as an intensely entertaining origin story that's neatly-crafted, action-packed & character-driven. Also, the screenplay packs in with a tightly structured plot plus the new take on the much less experienced & emotionally vulnerable character of Bond is as admirable as it is captivating.

The technical aspects show a massive improvement over the last few entries as each element is carefully handled & seamlessly integrated into the picture. Cinematography makes expert use of colour palettes & lighting to put on screen a rich texture that's incredibly well-detailed. Editing briskly paces the story in the first two acts but runs out of fuel in the third. And David Arnold's score provides a more modern feel to the picture without going out of the franchise's realms.

Everyone was sort of appalled when Daniel Craig was cast as the new Bond but the way he silenced all his critics is quite astonishing. Craig may not fit the version of Bond that had been put up on the silver screen since the beginning but for me, he's the perfect embodiment of this iconic character for he is everything James Bond is supposed to be; cold, ruthless, ironic & pretty much suave than any previous incarnations when blended with the range of emotions he has to offer.

The performances are a strong highlight here with Daniel Craig's charismatic performance taking away the biggest chunk of the cake, followed by impressive contributions from Eva Green as Vesper Lynd; Bond's lover, Judi Dench as M; head of MI6, & Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, the latter being instantly infectious in his given role. Also, with minimal use of CGI, less reliance on gadgets & old-school action, it keeps the drama all the more grounded & gripping throughout its runtime.

On an overall scale, Casino Royale is a fabulous start to the rebooted franchise that truly nails most of its aspect to deliver a cinema that's wild & exciting from start to finish while also putting to rest every doubt there ever was about Daniel Craig's ability to do justice to one of cinema's most memorable characters. I was never a fan of James Bond but after checking this feature, I don't think I can resist the temptation anymore. Very highly recommended.
8/10
Bond, James Bond
jack_o_hasanov_imdb19 August 2021
A new era has begun. Daniel Craig was a prejudiced Bond, but he did a great job. Also, I met Mads Mikkelsen for the first time with this movie. It was a cool movie.
0 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond - Ruthless/Vicious
Zooropa_9320 November 2006
I went to see Casino Royale on Saturday and I was really impressed by the acting and stunts. Daniel Craig is one of the most ruthless and vicious James Bond's I have seen since Sean Connery was in the role back in the 1960s.

Within the opening segments of the movie, he killed two people without any emotions being shown which made for him to being cold blooded but as he stated, he wouldn't be any good at his job.

I would really recommend people to go and see this movie if you want a fresh, dynamic, ruthless and vicious Bond and to forget all the negative comments and publicity surrounding Daniel Craig - he is brilliant and excellent!!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig Show;s From His Very First Scene,He Is James Bond,
lesleyharris3025 June 2013
Casino Royale is a fantastic movie with an action packed and very well written storyline and a great cast that follows through with their characters.This is Daniel Craig's first Bond movie and he give's us a great first impression,even from the very first scene we know he's going to be a great Bond,and he only improves on that as the movie continues.The movie is action packed and intense from start to finish,and the action and chase scenes are clearly inspired,not just action like the ones in Fast & Furious movies that are just an excuse to avoid telling a story,the action follows through with the story in this.Casino Royale is a must see for all fans of James Bond.

James Bond (Daniel Craig) is sent off on his first mission as 007 where he must go to Casino Royale and track down a weapons dealer.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
My First Bond
Neenee-b18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to see James Bond last night. It was the first ever James Bond movie i had ever sat through - i did watch about 20mins of Goldeneye but turned it off in disgust as the wonderful Sean Bean was killed (only to be told the truth a few days later by my overly amused friends).

I wasn't expecting much and i cant explain why. I will go and see anything in the cinema, i will watch and usually love any crap that Hollywood produces but for some reason James Bond did not appeal to me!!.

Half the group wanted to go and the other half didn't. I didn't have a choice as i am still in the badbooks for making everyone go and see The Hills Have Eyes (best horror/remake of the year IMO).

We decided not to prebook our tickets and leave it up to fate whether we got in or not. WE did of course and we where in our seats a mammoth 30mins (a record even for me) before it started, that is even after the usual drama of trying to work the pick&Mix and doing a quick toilet run.

SO after a near perfect run with the trailers (Eragorn, 300 and Deja Vu) the film began.

I can officially announce that James Bond wins the Neenee-b prize for the worst opening credits of the year. It was like a hippie playing poker on LSD in the 1960's. that is the only way to describe it.

I do have to admit that the first 20mins with J.B chasing a guy with a bomb through a building site was fantastic - it was really well shot and the action and stunts where real looking which is what made it so good.

After that to be honest it went down hill. There was a confusing story line about a poker game, with the villain being chased by another villain only for neither of those two villains to be the real villain. At the end i found it hard to figure out (or to care - 2 1/2 hour long movie people!!) who the main Bond Villain was.

The poker playing scenes where good. I felt quite smug that i knew what they were doing and i was quite amusing when they kept panning over to the Bondgirl and the other guy and he kept telling her (but really the audience in an overly obvious manner) what was happening!! I must say that Bonds co-star was the sexiest, voluptuous most expensive looking co-star in movie history. I mean after seeing the Sony Ericson phone close up for about the millionth time i almost sprang up in my seat and ran out of the cinema to my nearest car phone warehouse in order to buy one. The product placement in the film so effective and subtly done(please note sarcasm!! lol) Daniel Craig was fine as Bond, and yes i did inhale quite sharply when he came our of the pool but the true star was the gorgeous Aston Martin DB9. If it was me that was driving i would have saved the car and not the bond girl. I think that a few of the audience members felt the same as after the car role there was a few gasps for the death of the car.

Judi Dench was great as M, which so we have learnt is not a randomly assigned name - which sets us up nicely for M in her own super spy/grandmother type spin off movie!! I cant complain about the casting There were some amusing bits but weirdly the torture scene got the most laughs, but then again I'm from Ireland and we are all mad anyway.........

It went a bit Titanic towards the end with all the nautical terror. The bit with the girl behind the metal gates i think was a scene stolen right out of Titanic - i have expected Kate Winslet floating by on a big door.

Overall it was OK. From what I've been told it was the best Bond in years and i will take other peoples word for it. Daniel Craigs performance gets an 8/10 (he loses 1 point for climbing on board a movie franchise, enabling him to become world famous, have his own computer game and appear in many sequel and he loses another point for being upstaged by a car) The film for me gets a 7/10. It was a bit overlong as it refused to end but overall it was a much better to see my first James Bond film than sit through The Guardian!!!
9/10
This is one of the great Bond films and definitely the best Daniel Craig movie in the series
kevin_robbins26 February 2022
Casino Royale (2006) is a movie in my DVD collection that my wife and I recently watched for the first time in a long time. The storyline follows Bond as an up and coming agent whose most recent mission went terribly wrong and he has been placed on leave. He uses his time on leave to track down the person behind his failed mission, a man who manages money for freedom fighters in Africa. The man is going to be at a poker tournament in the Czech Republic, so, so will Bond.

This movie is directed by Martin Campbell (Golden Eye) and stars Daniel Craig (Knives Out), Eva Green (Penny Dreadful), Judi Dench (Notes on a Scandal), Jeffrey Wright (West World), Mads Mikkelsen (Hannibal), Giancarlo Giannini (Man on Fire) and Jesper Christensen (The Lady Vanishes).

The storyline for this picture, while a bit long, had a fantastic plot, primary characters and supporting characters. The dialogue was absolutely brilliant. The interaction were smart and Daniel Craig was perfectly selected as Bond. Mads Mikkelsen was a perfectly selected villain and his blood tears added to his mystique. The opening chase scene in this is outstanding in a perfectly over the top Bond way. The violence and shootouts were intense and very well modernized from the old films. The gamblings scenes were very well done and reminded me of good court drama scenes. I will say the ending was way too long and they dragged out the Eva Green complexities.

Overall this is one of the great Bond films and definitely the best Daniel Craig movie in the series. I would score this an 8.5/10 and strongly recommend it.
7/10
Doesn't really get good until the last 40 minutes or so.
dilloncamp19 April 2021
I tried really hard to be interested in this movie, but as I just said it doesn't really get that interesting until the last 40 minutes or so.

I watched it settle because Eva Green was in it anything she's in has my interest.

I've been trying really hard to get into the Daniel Craig bond films but honestly they are just boring to me.
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nice Concept But Flawed Script
tabuno22 January 2019
9 December 2006. While the edgy and serious performance by Daniel Craig offers a more stylistic touch to the Bond series, the script suffers from unbelievable blunders and less than satisfying encounters that James has with his opponents. From the very beginning the universal theme song is gone, replaced an unmemorable musical credit opening, without the exhilarating energetic packed opening. James finds himself too often the victim as his less than capable ability of losing his predators or hiding from them. His martial arts ability as a ruthless spy is less than brilliant considering this Bond's attempt at a more physical rather than high tech action thriller. This Bond is not a very personable character, not very engaging, and not a sympathetic individual - rather a more closed off, perhaps even selfish individual most people who rather avoid than succumb to. Overall, the change of tone is commendable, the attempt at more relational involvement, more human interaction and simpler, less than world-ending crusades is interesting, but not sufficient to overcome this movie's flaws. The ending without the usual, fantastic twist is the culminating let down of this newest version of James Bond. For martial arts and intelligent suspense, Matt Damon in the Bourne series is a clear winner. Even Jennifer Garner in Elektra or Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider have clearly spent more time and effort to present their physical abilities in a far more believable, superior way than Daniel Craig. Six out of Ten Stars.

Second review. This movie version upon a more relaxed viewing, allows for a more accommodating and appreciative experience as Daniel Craig's Bond version seemed much more acceptable this time and the personal need for the spectacular flash at the beginning and end have significantly lessened over time. Daniel Craig's initial outing as a 00 agent in reflection seems much more realistic now, human, and even his obnoxious personality seemed more complex and developed over the space and time of the movie. There were little technical irritants

(such as SPOILER ALERT) a crash bar door that doesn't open during the fight scene in a hotel stairway (so cliché)

and the early chase scene on foot seemed almost too manipulative and physical impossible.

I wasn't as caught up in the (BIG SPOILER ALERT) in Bond's girl's demise and found his attempting to perform CPR on her lame (her chest didn't rise) and Matt Damon's Bourne's loss of his girl was much more emotional haunting letting her go. Bond's loss was emotionally and morally much more convoluted and perhaps inconsistent.

Nevertheless, this Bond movie had a nice soundtrack the movie theme that apparently grows on one after listening to it enough. The physical fights that Daniel Craig performs now appear much more real and gritty and gripping. Bond's intellectual play with Vesper was truly delightful now and the equality, and twists now appear to offer Bond a much more credible feel. Eight out of Ten Stars.

(Third Review, 11/12/12). It's never happened before and may not again, but the more I watch this movie, the better it gets. My distaste on prior viewings may have more to do with what happens tragically towards the end of the movie than anything else and also why I've avoided repeated viewings of it. But pushing passed the distraught emotions, this Bond movie ranks as among, if not the best of the Bond movies for its extended glimpses into the persona and humanity of Craig's Bond version and the fine balance between action and substantive drama with a strong thread of gripping, increasing suspense throughout. Nine out of Ten Stars.
5/10
James Bond is dead.
j_imdb-10417 December 2006
Halfway watching this movie, I noticed something strange going on. Just like in 'Batman Begins', the superhero has become more 'human' than in previous films, and the action scenes are more credible. Bond gets really hurt, he bleeds, he even gets his shirts dirty. Remember Roger Moore? He did not get stains on his jacket even after falling into a wedding cake.

The film got high ratings, because people judge it like an action movie. It IS a good action movie. It just isn't a good Bond movie. Daniel Craig is a fine actor, and a good 007. But somehow, this Bond movie is not a Bond movie anymore:

Moneypenny, Q, and - what is much worse - James Bond's typical dry English humour, so excellently displayed by Pierce Brosnan: they are all absent. According to me, you can not make a Bond movie without these ingredients. I miss the jokes, I miss the over-the-top action scenes...

This 'Casino Royale' version heavily depends on mobile phones, we see close ups of them at least a dozen times - so often, it annoys. The title song is probably the worst since 'The Man with the Golden Gun'. A mediocre tune, easily forgotten. But it fits this film: a technically well made, but apart from that average action movie, easily forgotten. I hope James Bond will return. In a real Bond movie, with a real Bond tune.
9/10
All the wonder of the original 007
jim-184922 November 2006
If Sean Connery was always your favourite 007, you should be ready to switch. Everyone after Connery was an exercise in stretching your imagination..."No, no. That's not the 'real James Bond'." Daniel Craig is the new standard. He's lifted the role back on its film pedestal.

Like all Bond movies, this one tries to capture the essence of Iam Flemming's books rather than Potterize them. Unlike every Bond movie since Connery retired, this one succeeds.

The chases are completely breathtaking and delightfully twisted. In the showing I attended, the audience winced, oohed and ahhed. The plot was equally twisted -- brought up to date but still well within the genre boundaries.

The movie is two and half hours but it never gets long. Nor does the plot seem like a vehicle to transport you to the next chase or fight.

With so many disappointing movies in the past few years -- movies that substituted gore for suspense and sex for passion -- Casino Royale almost makes me want to pay a few extra bucks and tell 'em to keep up the good work. Almost.
10/10
Best in Line
jibranahmad20 January 2016
I cannot really express the depth of success it took but to give you an idea the movie actually tried to connect the character with the audience. When you watch the movie you develop the sense of interest in the character. As the movie throws different events and situations you are actually drawn and react the way the producer intends you to react. This way you actually feel like you are on a roller coaster. I believe that is one reason Daniel Craig actually achieved a base fan. I definitely have to thank the casting crew, the director, producer, and the writer of the novel. In comparison this in my opinion would rank top within the franchise as well as the James Bond movie selection. Daniel Craig also propelled the title far ahead.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Back to the Basics - An it works
The-Sarkologist28 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not sure when I last saw this film, but a part of me felt that it made no sense. The reason being was that it felt that it started in the middle of a story, ended in the middle of a story, and had a bunch of stuff happen in the middle that resulted in a palace in Venice being knocked to the ground (and a bit of research revealed that this wasn't actually filmed in Venice, but on a set, one of the largest sets ever built). Well, since I am slowly making my way through all of the Bond films, I have now watched this one again.

Honestly, I really don't know what I was on when I saw this film last, but I was incredibly mistaken. This film was actually really good, and it did make a lot of sense. Okay, it did sort of end suddenly, but that is because they were setting the stage for the next film, Quantum of Solace, and the reason why Bond has such a bone to pick with these particular guys.

One of the good things about this film is that they decided to go back to the source material and stick pretty close to it, so the events that happen in the film are basically the events that happen in the novel, with the exception of bringing it into the 2000s, and also moving the casino from Northern France to Montenegro. However, other than that (and maybe the opening scenes), the movie is apparently very faithful. Oh, and it is also sort of a reboot, though they do bring Judi Dench across from the previous film.

Basically Bond has just been awarded his 00 status, and immediately gets into trouble in Madagascar after he shoots up an embassy. Mind you, M is a lot more cold hearted in this film than the others, but a part of it was that they wanted to move away from the extravagance of the previous films and start coming back to Earth. Yeah, this version of MI6 has no problem with making agents that don't play ball disappear, and James certainly does get reminded of that. However, they are attempting to track down a terrorist organisation, and Bond sort of gets the opportunity after he prevents a plane from being blown up. This forces the bad guy, Le Chiffre, to enter into a high stakes poker tournament to make the money back. Bond's job is to make sure he loses, and while we all know that Bond is pretty good when it comes to cards, it seems as if in this instance, he may have bitten off more than he can chew.

One thing that got me near the beginning of the film was when he first met Vesper, the woman from treasury who was handling the money. There was a suggestion that she might actually be Miss Moneypenny, but it turns that that this was not the case. The thing is that there is something about the relationship between Bond and Moneypenny which would be ruined if they ended up sleeping together. As for the relationship between Bond and Vesper, yeah, that was actually done really well. In fact, it made a lot more sense than some of the other ones.

Oh, and they had some pretty good lines as well, such as this one which I will finish off with: 'You're not my type.' 'Smart' 'Single'
9/10
Wow!!
beresfordjd22 May 2007
My wife hates Bond movies, and since Connery left I can take or leave them - I enjoy them as bubble-gum that is I never want to re-chew them. But Casino Royale is awesome. Craig has reinvented the character and swept away all preconceptions. We have waited a long time before finally viewing it and it totally lived up to the hype.I have always rated Craig as a fine actor and that is what he brings to it, as well as a genuine physical presence. My wife loved it (and him) to bits. The fight scenes were convincing and brutal and the whole thing played out like a modern thriller. The story harked back to the original book (which I read when it was new!!)which worked well for me .Cannot wait for the next one!!!
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent new direction for Bond films
beaconb21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had seen the great reviews of the new Bond film and decided to check it out. It was well worth it. It was a mostly believable plot, the acting was mostly excellent, and I hope to see more like it in the future. There were some humorous parts, but subtle (I was the only person laughing at some of the jokes. One has a quick view of Richard Branson in an airport security screening. I guess I was the only person in the audience that recognized him, and the humor of it). As a hold'em poker player, I was a little disappointed in the hand they used to show Bond losing to what he perceived as a bluff (if you have a full-house, you aren't going to be too concerned with someone having four of a kind, so worrying about whether they are bluffing is not an issue).
8/10
It's about bloody time
gainestillinger21 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anyone who saw Die Another Day will probably agree that Brocolli and co., with the help of Madonna and 'too sexy for the screen' Halle Berry, nearly flogged the Bond horse to death through a strong cocktail of crap stunts, smarm, crap effects and yet more smarm. Since then, the horse not only died, but it has been left to fester. Thankfully, Daniel Craig is the breath of fresh air that the franchise has been looking for and the smell of rotting cheese can now blow away and leave us with the sophisitcated scent of sex and death.

Casino Royale is an intelligently written and directed movie that begins at the beginning. Much like Nolan's Batman Begins, Bond begins again. And, much like the new Batman, Bond is no longer ageless and timeless: he has a history and is, in this film and at this stage of his life, unborn; he is but a fledgling 00 agent, one who is still to cut his teeth.

Craig's Bond is chiselled and, unlike his predecessors, actually looks like he could kill a man with his bare hands. He wears a suit very well, but only when necessary, unlike Roger Moore who would wear one in the bath. Craig's Bond challenges the long-standing Bond genre as it is he who walks out of the sea in barely a swimsuit and it is the female audience members who swoon. He delivers lines like: (in response to being asked 'shaken or stirred?') 'Do I look like I give a damn?' with just the right amount of frost to make us want to look below the surface of a historically sterile character and find his heart and a soul, which is far more interesting than watching an over-the-hill Brosnan surf across a glacier of erupting ice or battle the power of the sun.

Casino Royale begins with the bodging of a fairly routine capture and question mission, a quite stunning footchase through a Madagaskern building site where Bond pursues the mega-dexterous Sebastien Foucan (a world champion street runner) and a subsequent kicking of the backside by M, played again by the wonderful Judi Dench. Bond is to 'stick his head in the sand' while she considers his future. So he does, and goes to the Bahamas on a holiday… and to follow a lead salvaged from the said botched chase and capture. From here it's off to Miami, Montenegro, Venice, Lake Como and then, surely, back to Blighty for cocktails. However, it's not that simple. Along the way he meets Vesper, his first and only love. By competing in a one hundred and fifty million dollar poker game against the bad guy, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkleson) he melts Vesper's somewhat austere exterior and opens his cold heart, letting her past the 'fast smile and expensive watch' persona that we know and may have become a bit bored with. Bond is human, and in love, but he is to be betrayed by her; for what reason is an intriguing plot-twist and a direct link to the next: Quantum of Solace.

There is action, drama, love, revenge, gambling, drinking, expensive clothes, hotels, watches, locations and beautiful people – enough variety to keep even those totally sick of the Bond franchise entertained. There is also a torture scene where Bond's, ahem, 'pocket aces' are assaulted in a way that would make even a eunuch remember and empathise.

Despite a serious ball ache, the horse is alive and well and out for revenge.
4/10
A graphic, mean-spirited vastly overrated movie.
yihdzelonh1 December 2016
How do you rate a move like this? Casino Royale is, by far, the most graphic, violent, and mean-spirited James Bond movie that up until now I have ever seen. Some of the stunts and action sequences were among the most amazing that I have ever seen in a James Bond film. Daniel Craig has some great physical skills that seem to surpass those of all previous James Bonds. He does seem to have a decent amount of presence and personality and in these aspects makes for an adequate James Bond. And yet he is easily the most unlikeable and mean-spirited of all the James Bond actors that I have become familiar with. He isn't nearly as likable...or as good-natured as say, Roger Moore...or even Pierce Brosnan (perhaps the most 'accurate' incarnation of any of the Bonds boys).

The movie -as nearly all movies do- was clearly a microcosm of the era it was released in 2000s. I was a little annoyed at seeing Judi Dench using the vile and immature language of today with phrases that included "a**" and "prick." It also cheapened the movie to see Daniel Craig say "...scratch my 'effin' balls..." Can you imagine phraseology like this being used by previous Bond actors?

At 2 1/2 hours long I felt that the movie was very clearly 'overtly' long...and though the pacing was fine I felt that the action sequences were somewhat too far in between. Most of the way through the movie, I was 'waiting' for the movie to end and kept on 'pausing' the movie to find out how much time there was left. The cinematography and FX were very good......and yet all things considered I really didn't enjoy this movie at all.

How do you rate a movie like this?

YOU don't; I do: 4 1/2 stars.
4/10
Boring. Why? Because of bad acting, a stupid story and UNimpressive stunts. What's left? Any good jokes? Nope. Completely TEDIOUS to watch...
imseeg13 February 2022
The bad; it's lacking in jokes. Daniel Craig never was a funny fella. Never will be.

More bad: this story is tedious.

Even more bad: the supporting actors are rubbish. Mads Mikkelsen excluded, he does perform really well, but he cant save this tedious Bond edition from drowning.

Even the stunts and the special effects are UNimpressive. How much below average can it get?

This is the worst of all the Daniel Craig movies. Only crybabies like this movie.
0 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
a great action movie
jacobjohntaylor112 July 2014
This part 21 to the James Bond movie. Die another day is better. The world is not enough is better. Quantum of Solace is also better. But still this is a great movie. Better Casino r.o.y.a.l.e (1967) staring David N.i.v.e.n that is not real James Bond movie. It is just a pile of stinky pooh. This is a real James Bond movie. It has great acting. Daniel Greg is great as James Bond. All the bond girls are good actresses. Eva Green is one of the prettiest Bond girls. Tomorrow never dies is better. Golden eye is better. License to kill is better. Living daylights is better. A view to a kill is better. Never say never again is also better. O.c.t.o.p.u.s.s.y is also better. But still this is a great movie. See it.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Best Bond Film Bar None
cooblimey20 November 2006
I read all the Bond books when I was 10 so whilst I'm no Bond expert I could consider myself at an advantage in commenting on how well this film sticks to the character that Flemming wanted to portray.

If I start by saying that I saw this film twice in 24 hours at the cinema then I hope that I set up my review quite obviously: this Bond film is simply the best in terms of sticking to the gritty, misogynistic gambler that is James Bond.

Finally after years of pap and miscast leads they really have hit the nail on the head with this one. What they should do now is remake all the Bond books, in order, with Daniel Craig as the lead for every single film.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The most 'classy' bond movie ever..!
dmakku21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is taking over the reigns as Bond. James Bond. And he does a great job. Now, we have a no nonsense, take charge kind of Bond. But he's also a little more vulnerable too. Hell, he only achieves his double "0" status (as in 007) at the beginning of the movie. All the action scenes in Casino Royale feel fresh and re-invigorated. They feel like a return to old fashioned stunt work. There are no car chases with gadgets and smoke screens. He's not invincible, and Casino Royale reminds you of this. But it lends itself to some suspenseful scenes, but more importantly, it lays down the groundwork for some important moments in the Bond legacy, namely his discovery of good martinis and the tux. That scene with Bond first putting the tux on is done quite nicely. There are other staples of the Bond series, such as the elaborate credit sequence (with a song courtesy of ex-Soundgarden/current Audioslave front-man Chris Cornell), the classic Aston Martin and beautiful Bond women.

But the movie isn't interested in winking and nodding to the audience about these things. It's about establishing Daniel Craig as the perfect James Bond in the franchise. For this alone, the movie is a complete success. I'm not going to make ludicrous comparisons to previous Bond actors, because opinions vary on other Bond portrayals. Is he as good as Connery was in the role? Hells yes. Craig is suave, sophisticated, but just unhinged enough to make you believe him as a real man, not just the super agent we've come to associate Bond with. You even get to see Bond fall in love, a rarity for the series. And you also get to see him kick some ass. And take some names. Craig was the first step in many steps that assured Casino Royale would turn out to be a really good movie. For once, I'm truly excited when I see the words "James Bond Will Return". Credits to Martin Campbell who made the best out of Pierce Brosnan with his first movie as Bond through "Golden Eye".. Sure, Craig seems to do better..
9/10
Welcome back Mr Bond.
slightlymad224 January 2007
CASINO ROYALE not only manages to be one of the very best Bond films in the character's long screen history, it also serves as a timely reminder that no matter how tired an idea may seem, if you follow it through with enough conviction and skill, you can still come up with something special. Its' importance to the action movie world can not be understated either, as one hopes it will act as a blueprint for films hereafter. It's time to get back to basics and just allow action stars and stunt people to express their own remarkable abilities, without the tired enhancement of CGI and wirework.

The significance of CASINO ROYALE will, in years to come, be reflected upon as the movie which gave a wake up call to the "mainstream" action genre. The sheer physicality on show here serves as a timely reminder as to what the over reliance on "wire-work" and CGI-enhanced trickery has robbed us of. As outlandish as some of the sequences may be, they are performed by stunt men pushing themselves to the limit. The incredible "free running" scene, where Daniel Craig (and his stunt double) tries to keep up with real-life "free runner" Sebastien Foucan, is quite honestly the best action scene to have graced the big screen for many, many years. Why? Well, because apart from being brilliantly directed, edited and photographed (just sit back and marvel at the panoramic shots on the crane), it's because it has a raw feel to it. You know these guys are putting everything into it. Wire-work I'm afraid, takes away the "wow" factor, so how fitting it is, that one of cinema's original action heroes, James Bond, has put this factor back into movies.

Fans of the lighter, more outlandish Bond movies may well be disappointed. For me however, Martin Campbell deserves huge praise for revitalising the franchise. My only concern for BOND 22, is how the hell are they going to equal, let alone top this?! As long as they follow along the same lines in their approach to the character, I personally can not wait to find out where Craig's 007 will take us. Welcome back Mr Bond.
5/10
Bond can't be blonde...
sheldougley17 March 2007
This movie would have been so much more enjoyable if they had picked the right person to play Bond. Daniel Craig is a reasonable actor and I have no doubt he is a good action hero type. But I have been a Bond fan since Sean Connery uttered those immortal words: "My name is Bond, James Bond". James has always had dark hair and been over 6 feet tall. There are so many actors that could have easily filled the role. Gerard Butler, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman, even Julian McMahon. All are dark haired, over 6 feet and English, Scottish or Australian (as were all previous Bonds). It completely spoiled my Bond watching experience that this short blonde person was playing my favourite movie character. I have nothing at all against Daniel as an actor but he's not James Bond. Everything else about this movie was slick and I would have enjoyed the action and the acting. I will not be watching any more of the Daniel Craig as Bond movies. It ruined it for me. When they go back to the correct character type, I'll return.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bland, James Bland
jonpuck20 April 2007
Before this was released, there was a lot of angry speculation about whether Daniel Craig had what it takes to step into the Bond shoes. But, in fact Craig seems to be the only one trying to make this a Bond movie. Craig plays Bond with his particular style of brutal vulnerability. He has always had the face of someone nursing an ancient wound that won't heal. And he does well with the material he has been given. Unfortunately, that isn't really very much.

The plot, which has to be one of the all time daftest, revolves around Bond stopping international terrorism by playing poker with its main financial backer – using millions of pounds of British taxpayers money. Gosh, now there's a good plan! It's just crazy enough to work, as they say in Hollywood. It's really just an excuse for a whole lot of very tense casino footage with actors saying stuff like: "I'll see your 20 million and raise you another 20 million" all spoken through clenched teeth, presumably to stop themselves from giggling.

Possibly because it's all so ridiculous, the writers have tried to offset this by removing all the other customary Bond absurdities. There's none of the politically incorrect sleaze (Bond even falls in love for gods sake!). And no gadgets to speak of – alas, no laser cuff links or jet propelled shoelaces. Even the action sequences look almost within the bounds of physical possibility. Gone are the days when Bond would think nothing of strapping himself into an evil experimental rocket-ship, still wearing his tuxedo. In place of all that, we're served up a wince-inducing torture scene straight out of 24.

The problem, as I see it, is that this has also removed a lot of the fun. This may well be a lean, mean Bond for our times, but it's Bond in name only. To be fair, the film is well made and Craig is (as always) engaging, but it could be about anybody. It's just not James Bond. When Craig speaks the immortal lines "Bond, James Bond", I simply didn't believe him.
10/10
Best Bond film in Years.
letsto1 June 2010
I loved, loved this Bond movie.

I had low hopes for the new Bond. I had seen him in other movies and he didn't really make much of an impression.

I had always likes the original Fleming novel.

This film is really an origin story.

Shows how he became Bond. How he got his Double 0-number.

Bond actually falls in love for the first time since On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Craig plays a very credible, lethal, tough Bond.

This is easily the Best Bond film in a few decades.
8/10
Royale - hold the cheese.
southdavid9 September 2021
With the next Bond film now looking like it might actually finally be released, I decided to take a look back at Daniel Craig's run so far and see how I feel about them. It's tough to believe that this first film was 15 years ago, but here we are, and mostly I think "Casino Royale" really holds up.

Having bungled the capture of a bomb manufacturer, the newly minted "Double O" agent, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is placed on leave. Instead of following the advice, he continues to track the case, eventually discovering the involvement of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) a terrorist financier. After thwarting a business trade that Le Chiffre had bet heavily on, the two meet across the Poker table as Le Chiffre ties to win back the money he has lost. Funded by Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) Bond must win the game to force Le Chiffre to seek protective custody.

What's immediately impressive about "Casino Royale" are the practical effects. It opens with an impressive parkour scene and then sees two stuntmen climbing around on top of a tower crane - the fight remain real and visceral throughout, without ever resorting quite to the Bourne levels of shaky camera. Daniel Craig is good here, as a slightly smug agent, who starts out overconfident and never having lost anything. Unlikely previous Bond films, there's a realism and a vulnerability (physical not emotional) to this portrayal.

I think you can tell that the plot of the film is based on a book, it's pretty complex. With the reasons for the betrayal at the end needing me to reread the summation on Wikipedia to get why they actually did it. I like that this one doesn't build to a big set piece, which is what you anticipate from action films - though perhaps it says something that a Venetian building sinking into the canal doesn't feel like a big set piece. The use of music is really clever, staying away from the central Bond theme until the end, but reprising the "You Know My Name" theme regularly.

I liked it, I liked how clever, real and visceral it was. "Quantum of Solace" next ... yikes.
8/10
one of the best bond movies i have seen
ns_sunilkumar22 November 2006
i was as everybody else went into this movie with a doubt nagging behind in my head... will Craig be able to fill in to the shoes of the spy we have all come to love and of lately started to yawn at? my heart almost went out for Craig, because he had such a big image to live up to. well all said and done, i should say that this is one of the best bond movies i had seen and may be even one of the good movies on the whole. Craig is redefining the character as we have never known him before. the subtle blends of humane and cold blooded killer, has been aptly portrayed and delivered. the absence of senseless gizmo's helps to improve the novel feel of the movie. sheer energy and ruthlessness of fight scenes are beautifully shot. after seeing this, i am just wondering what will they dish up for the next bond movie... i don't want them to ruin this whole thing all over again....
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond reinvented for the iPod generation
didi-59 December 2006
I approached this film with mixed feelings - I've seen most of the Bond films over the years (but missed out, largely, on the Brosnan-era titles) and was not sure where this one would fit in.

The sixth Bond is Daniel Craig, previously known for TV series 'Our Friends in the North' and art-house films such as 'Love is the Devil' (where he played the sadomasochistic lover of Francis Bacon) and 'The Mother' (where he had an affair with a much older woman played by Anne Reid). While much of the reaction to his casting centred on him being the first blond Bond, what counts is can he deliver? The answer is definitely yes - this Bond is sexy, unhinged, psychotic, and complex. He's a Bond for the short attention span so perfect for the new generation of fans this series will surely gain.

'Casino Royale' (no relation to the David Niven spoof) adapts the first Ian Fleming novel so is in many senses the starting point for James Bond, 007. However, setting it in a post-Cold War period removes all the history of the previous films and proves that Craig's Bond is a fresh start for a series which was getting tired and silly. There are precious few jokes in this movie, although some of it is as improbable as ever, and there are the usual breathtaking stunts (at least as assume much of it was real stunt-work and not CGI).

The rest of the cast are largely forgettable. Eva Green plays the female interest, banker Vesper Lynd, and she is as pretty as any other Bond girl, perhaps as tough as Carey Lowell was in 'Licence to Kill' or Honor Blackman was in 'Goldfinger'. But the character of Lynd seems a little two-dimensional and adds confusion to the plot which is not necessarily needed. Better is Mads Mikkelsen as the villain of the piece, a money-lender with odd-coloured eyes who weeps blood. And Judi Dench returns as a prickly and watchable M.

Much more violent than the other Bond titles, this does not automatically feel like it belongs in the series (even John Barry's signature theme is missing from the opening credits - which are, incidentally, spectacular), but even with its faults (a confusing plot, an ending which stretches credibility, too many characters, and a leg-crossingly dangerous torture scene) and with that poker game which is impossible to follow, it retains the interest mainly because of Craig - who, yes, does come out of the sea dripping wet just as Ursula Andress did in 'Dr No', and very easy on the eye he is too.

The Bond formula can only benefit from having an excellent actor in the lead role, and Craig seems to fit the part like a glove. I only hope he continues to work in the smaller, more challenging movies as he would be a great loss if he moved on to the Hollywood blockbuster.
7/10
Amazed me
mathijsvd124 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like another 007 movie..

But no!

It really surprised me!

The dead scene of the lovely Eva Green was something I had never seen before. It was 'great' and my compliments to the producer for that! Two things i'd like to comment on though is the use of 'placing brands'. --> Too much!! I love the Aston Martin(s) (the Vanquish is the most amazing car today) but too much is too much!

Also, there were moments I thought it was a bit over the top. OK, it's an action movie but still. Some credibility always looks nice. :-) (ecspecially the opening chase and the crash of the Vanquish)

But, Casino Royal: One to see!
10/10
Bond bad role model, ( with very mild spoiler, no story given away)
georgebush19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is not a very nice guy in this film. He shoots unarmed people. He goes after married women. Bond laughs or smiles when looking at dead people. The blond hair is not the problem. He seems almost like a villain at times. There is no feeling of adventure in this film. It has too much torture.

There is no one to like in this movie. There are no good guys. The two female characters are jerks. one brags about cheating. The other girl is like a feminist psychologist. Her and Bond engage in endless conversation about ego. Yes, ego. Like to much self ego. There are some good action sequences with bond running and wild jumps. There is way too much talk. The last scenes have no action but revolve around death and sadism. This is a film that everyone is mean in. There are no decent people. The villain is pathetic and sad and not a worthy foe. . This is depressing film that has some good action. The best scenes are the card games in the casino. Those are good. All and all, the reason to see the film is if you are a Bond fanatic who wants to see all of the films. This one is by far the darkest.
7/10
Bond is reinvented by the man who did the very same thing 11 years previously in a touching and engaging thriller.
johnnyboyz4 November 2008
In 1995, New Zealand born director Martin Campbell made Goldeneye, the 17th entry into the James Bond franchise. Campbell managed to update and bring a new lease of life to a series many thought would peter out following the end of The Cold War between global superpowers. Not only did Campbell update Bond from a globe trotting, hunting down of drug smuggling and cartel dealing drug barons but he poked fun at the Bond character, having characters rendering him a 'relic' from The Cold War and others laughing at the quips that has made him famous off screen; quips such as 'shaken but not stirred' given a shake down of its own: 'shaken, but not undisturbed' laughed uneasy Russian ally Valentin Zukovsky.

The film marked Pierce Brosnan's debut and is one of my few favourites in a franchise a lot of us like purely because we might have grown up watching them but viewing them now they do come across as rather ordinary means of entertainment. Indeed, how many times do we mention James Bond when really talking about the greats or indeed the minor greats of cinema? Fast-forward the series eleven years and we have Casino Royale; new Bond and new universe in which to play about with. Re-enter Martin Campbell and another good entry to the series. Once again, Campbell updates Bond but this time into a new universe as a new world order (war on global terrorism) looms in the background. Campbell rescues Bond once again, ripping him away from phoney windsurfing CGI effects and visual 'nods' to Bond films past alá Die Another Day just as he did in 1995 when Bond was last seen chasing drug barons on a revenge mission, and gives him room to actually be someone.

I can remember seeing Casino Royale in the cinema, two years after I saw 2004's Layer Cake which starred Bond-to-be Daniel Craig. I can remember that shot in which he is given a silenced pistol at a friend's house and how he mockingly creeps down a corridor in his friend's house alá James Bond. His friend reacts with a whispered expletive and the audience chuckled – the star may well have been born right there.

Casino Royale begins in black and white, a tactic used to get across that feeling of the retro or time gone by, as Bond (Craig) nears his second hit, a man on the take named Dryden (Sinclair). This use of black and white knocks us slightly, perhaps intended to pre-date 1962's Dr. No, this being a prequel of sorts and indeed, I cannot remember the use of black and white in too many other Bond films for the reasons to create a presence of history. I think Daniel Craig nails Bond in a certain sense through the face and facial expressions. Connery's Bond was a young and raw Bond, very much akin to Craig's here; Moore's smarmy and overly confident approach was perhaps suited to a man nearing the end of his 007 career where as Dalton's and Brosnan's seemed to get across a decent mixture of aggression and compassion, even if some of their respective films were a little ordinary.

Craig plays Bond in the same raw style Connery did in the 1960s – Bond is new on the beat; he seems to enjoy the killing and the action. Indeed, that deliberately long tracking shot in on Craig's face as he watches a terrorist detonate his own bomb whilst it's attached to his belt evokes a joy that he not only saved the day but outsmarted his enemy in the process. Early on in the film, Bond's immaturity or eagerness pushes through in an impressively told manner – he isn't given a stone wall assignment by M (Dench) but acts on impulse, scooting around Madagascar and the Bahamas in search of whoever. What's interesting here and makes a further mockery of the laughably bad Bourne series is that in essence, these are chase sequences or ideas revolving around chase but they are shot, structured and edited in a fashion that is coherent and enjoyable. I'd rather watch the Miami airport chase ten times than sit through The Bourne Ultimatum again in its entirety.

So Bond is the renegade, the anti-hero. But what follows and after a lot of talk of egos and so forth is a humbling; a rendez-vous with a female foil named Vesper Lynd who he will come to love. As a female character compared to the wife of a possible enemy earlier on, she isn't as glamorous; loose or seductive and the conversation she has with Bond about certain masculine traits including dress sense pushes her away from a typically loose or classical 'Bond girl', a cliché or something we've all come to easily identify. She is superior to Bond's previous squeeze in the film and acts as a foil more so than a piece of eye candy or a tool to assist Bond. There is a scene in which she is in the shower but it is a humane scene as she contemplates having seen death and dead bodies prior in the day for the first time. The typical characters in a 'Bond movie' are stripped down and presented as human, she isn't topless in the shower as Bond joins her, she is broken. Casino Royale is an enjoyable and well constructed espionage thriller that twists and turns throughout but remains a heartfelt and very engaging film.
10/10
Bond Is Finally Good Again
walken_on_sunshine13 January 2007
After Roger Moore's intentionally cheesy films finished i lost interest in Bond, when Timothy Dalton took over i lost more interest, then Pierce Brosnan's superhero, stuntman, Bond debut and i didn't care anymore however this new Bond has brought me back to fandom.Casino Royal shows Bond as a remorseless assassin he kills with ease because well that's his job.This film took Bond in a new direction a darker more violent direction with a darker and more violent Bond.The action is all still there however it's more gritty than Pierce Brosnan's Tae Kwon Do, gadget wielding action scenes and also with more purpose.The scenery and look of the film leaves you in awe as the first scene until the end of the credits give off a very film noir feel and the rest dazzles you with gorgeous, eye popping visuals.Finally Bond is being taken seriously and finally Ian Flemmings true vision of Bond appears to have arrived.They do still have some annoying little issues though the bad guy is still the menacing foreigner with the strategically placed scar i just couldn't take him seriously it felt like Dr.Evil was playing poker with them.The other annoying thing is the pacing we have a rush of adrenaline fueled fun at the beginning then the middle comes along and drags on and on until a breathtaking final action sequence in Venice of all places so you do get antsy and bored in the middle of the film unless you enjoy watching poker but the end saves the film pacing wise.The bond girls are both hot and intelligent vs Pierce Brosnans damsels in distress wearing slutty clothing so that was a good change.Oh people don't think I'm bashing Mr.Brosnan as he was a great James Bond and is a great actor but the Bond movies he starred in were over the top and still took themselves seriously eg.the Goldeneye opening sequence.Daniel Craig is where it's at he can pull off both the serious, emotional Bond and the suave,humorous Bond he's better than Connery,Moore,Dalton,and Brosnan, oh yeah and lahzenby but no one remembers him as Bond anyway.Overall see Casino royale for a new refreshing vision of Bond and a much more accurate portrayal of who Ian Flemming wrote him as.
8/10
James Bond returns
Petey-1017 November 2010
007 has returned in a new adventure after a few years of break.It's the 21st of the series.This time Mr. Bond has to play a game of poker against a villain called Le Chiffre.That's all I will say about the plot, because the plot is never the most important thing in the James Bond movies.Casino Royale (2006) is directed by Martin Campbell.I just read Ian Fleming's novel, the very first James Bond novel, and I really liked it.The movie hasn't followed the book in every parts.Daniel Craig has taken the part of 007 in this one.He does a good job, but he's no Sean Connery or Roger Moore.Eva Green is very good as the Bond girl Vesper Lynd.Mads Mikkelsen is great as Le Chiffre.Jeffrey Wright is terrific as Felix Leiter.Here we see the modern James Bond.Some people may say it was just about time for James Bond to step into the new millennium.For me it's kind of hard to find Bond, as I know him, in Daniel Craig's character.He looks cool, and so do the action scenes.Like the one where chases the guy at the construction site.Also the torturing sequence is memorable.So this works, although it's hard to find James Bond there.
10/10
Bond -- Not Just Camp Anymore
pdvincit26 August 2008
If you read any of Ian Fleming's books on Bond, then you know the stories are high-spirited, intense and with detailed descriptions. The devil is in the details and that is how he tempts us to partake. So, perhaps you, too, have ordered a martini the way James Bond prefers them made.

What Fleming's books are not, is campy comedy with an insincere protagonist and disposable attractive women.

If you have never read the books, then Saltzman and Broccoli probably defined Bond for you. You have my sympathy.

So, this movie returns to Bond's roots in more than one way. It starts at the beginning, more or less, and it starts without tongue in cheek. It is about time, too. The camp had been done way past the point of exhaustion -- of the writers, the actors and, most importantly, the audience.

Let us all hope that this Bond does not degenerate the way Saltzman and Broccoli's Bond did in that franchise.

Welcome back, Ian Fleming's James Bond. You have been a long time away.
10/10
Don't judge a book by its cover.
decline41422 November 2006
To be honest i was very critical of the new bond, Daniel Craig. I guess I wanted to see Brosnan back and expected the same out of Craig. I believe this is due to my younger age and growing up with seeing Brosnan as Bond. After seeing the movie and thinking about the previous bonds I really do like Craig. He has that older "rough-edged" personality of Sean Connery. Craig played the role very well and definitely, in my opinion, was an excellent choice for bond. To be honest I always thought Pierce Brosnan was the best bond ever, and until I saw Casino Royale I am really not sure of who the best is. If you are critical like I was and think that Daniel Craig is not a good bond go and watch the movie, its just like the saying "don't judge a book by its cover"
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Casino Royale
jon20054 April 2007
It's a bit of a catch-22 situation watching the new James Bond film. What keeps bringing us back to watch them are the combination of outlandish fantasy and a sense of comforting familiarity – the Bond films are basically the same theme with slight variations, but this is what makes them appealing. With Casino Royale the filmmakers have gone a different direction; in fact, references to Batman Begins are not too far off the mark as this new Bond, like the new Batman, is grounded in reality. What is lost is the sense of the familiarity – with the new direction comes a completely different feel for the film.

The fact that many of the old Bond-isms are gone is both good and bad. There are few gadgets here (a good thing – Bond was becoming too over-reliant on his get-out-of-any-situation gadgets) and no Moneypenny. In fact, anything that can be classed as a distraction from telling a grounded story has been cleared out. Even the glib one-liners have been toned down, though not lost – there is still a lot of laughs to be had from watching the film. The filmmakers have, perhaps, gone a little too far with it though. The absence of the Bond theme is frankly confusing, given its almost revered status amongst theme tunes. Indeed, with its emphasis on reality, Casino Royale has lost the fantasy element that, whilst ridiculous, was nonetheless ridiculously entertaining. Because of this, the film feels less like a Bond film than perhaps it should.

That said, Casino Royale is an excellent film. For all the naysayers, Daniel Craig is a brilliant lead, capturing Bond's growth from slightly naïve, arrogant and cocky new 00 agent through his descent to stone-cold killer, via heart-melted lover. His development is believable as he learns from his mistakes and, by the end of the film, has grown more like the character we already know and love. This is helped by the supporting cast who all bring to life their respective characters, but particular mention must be made to Eva Green, playing Vesper Lynd. Her chemistry with Craig is electric, the screen buzzing with energy when they are together, so that their initial power play that then turns to mutual love is a joy to watch. Without these two great actors, the film would have surely stalled.

The style of the film is also a new development for the re-energised franchise. Beginning with a black-and-white prologue where we see how Bond earns his 00 status (cleverly incorporating the moment where Bond turns and shoots towards the screen) the film is given a welcome darker atmosphere. It's also a lot more brutal than previous instalments – this Bond bleeds, and after a fight is next seen sporting bruised knuckles. Coupled with a leg-crossing torture scene makes this Bond seem less invincible than the others (after all, Bond always wins – we're just not so sure if everything will really turn out OK in this one). Another interesting angle is of the villain, Le Chiffre (played with cold menace by Mads Mikkelsen), who has as much to lose as Bond himself, thus making him both more vulnerable and more vicious. The stunts throughout are jaw dropping, especially a free running section in Madagascar, in which the comparison between the runner's skill and grace and Bond's practicality is both clever and amusing. All the stops have clearly been pulled out – the sequence at the airport could easily have been the climax to any other action film – and the result is a fast paced, if maybe a little overlong, and well conceived film; any filmmaker who can give a poker game plenty of tension must be doing something right!

Overall, this Bond film is in a different league than its predecessors. Any franchise that has been going for this long can only survive by reinvention, so in the long run this may be a good change. At the moment, Casino Royale is an excellent film, just maybe not the kind of Bond film we were expecting, though in a refreshing way (catch-22, remember?!). But in a world of films like The Bourne Identity and Mission: Impossible, Bond must grow and adapt. And he has done so with skill and style. It may not be the Bond we are used to seeing, but I get the feeling that this new Bond will not be difficult to get used to.

Rated: 8/10

More reviews at: http://www.thelazylounge.net
8/10
Not as good as Die Another Day(2002), but alright in it's own way.
DarkVulcan2917 December 2006
Daniel Craig seems to bring the same roughness to the role of James Bond, the way Sean Connery in the 60's. It does'nt play like your typical James Bond flick, like your used to seeing. This is a more back to basic type of story, how agent James Bond has to earn his OO7 statue. I'm kind of glad this was Bonds beginnings cause every legend has start somewhere, they pick the right actor, Daniel Craig fit the role to a tease, but the one of a few flaws is that they did not give him enough charming dialog that made the character so popular. And the action was alright, but Die Another Day was better with it's action. But hay it's only the beginning.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
thrilling and filled with action
bob36229 December 2007
the movie casino royal is amazing it stuns the audience with the action,the links to life and the partially comedy which comes with the movie.the story is told very well and is constantly in a different place,James bond travels the world completing all of the missions or (tasks)put forward,he is a very dominant character and is very good at expressing his role in the movie.his character would be described as seductive,strong,lady boy. etc but all in all i gave the movie ten for the sheer effort of the producers and the amount of time which people have spent on making the link between the audience and the movie,by god the movie was so stunning i could not find no faults,the scenes were perfect the story was expressed in a more overwhelming form of way and at the end they left the scene as if another one was going to continue the best thing about the movie is that the scenes follow on with the story lines and the theme of the movie matches the target theme which was set.

in the movie James bond has found love with a very intelligent women who is very much like him.they are both like hit men and work together to trick the people around them in to thinking that they are in love.but they Arne't close to the end of the movie James bond is tortured and bullied into trying to give away the password which protects the money which James bond had won in a poker game,but in one day he killed hit men he nearly died due to poison but his car saved his life.

all of the machines,guns,action,violence are used to put forward fixed views of the movie which allows you the audience to understand life's points e.g.James bond goes into retirement due to his lucky gambling game which gives him the chance to become rich and get it all all in all i really recommend this movie to be seen by all action movie fans simply the best.
8/10
Fantastic action
lhbaker-2878328 May 2021
I did not watch the original Bond movies before this one: Casino Royale. But I still loved it. In this review I will tell you good things and bad things about this movie.

Good things: The action is probably the best that is not fantasy or sci-fi. Also the acting is great and this film is also funny when it comes to it. CGI is great and this will have you on the edge of your seat.

Bad things: Casino Royale can be boring at times and the length of this movie is a tiny bit stretched at 2 hours and 24 minutes.

Overall Casino Royale is a great movie with fantastic action and an ok plot, that I would recommend to most people.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent prequel
stevendbeard21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the 21st James Bond movie & they decided to do like several other franchises , such as Batman Begins & Superman Returns , have done lately ; go back to the beginning & tell how our hero started out . Daniel Craig , from Lara Croft:Tomb Raider & Road to Perdition , plays a rougher , grittier Bond . There are lots of action sequences with more running & just plain physical action , than in most Bond movies . The fight scenes are brutal & realistically staged . You see Bond's first kills , that make him eligible for his '00' status . Judi Dench returns , or I guess you could say begins , as 'M' . Mads Mikkelsen , from King Arthur , plays the villain . Eva Green , from Kingdom of Heaven , is a Bond girl & Jeffrey Wright , from Ali , plays Felix Leiter . You see how Bond gets his first Aston Martin & it's not from Her Majesty's Secret Service . You also see what helps shape Bond into the Super-Spy that he later becomes . There are several 'nods' to Bond staples , such as the Martini that he favors shaken , not stirred . There are not a lot of gadgets , since there isn't a 'Q' yet . The only time it slows down is during the card game . There is also a torture scene that is faithful to the original book & very difficult for most men to watch . Overall , I really enjoyed it & I can't wait until it's available on DVD .
10/10
New era as a king is born
Leggylad_123 November 2006
I am not a film buff, but I certainly am a Bond buff. And I don't think there has been a good bond film since Goldeneye. I have been waiting for a film that wasn't just trying to beat the previous one for sheer ridiculous creativity.

From start to finish this is blatantly a Bond, however unlike the recent efforts this is also an excellent film. It has fast cars, action, women, violence, humour and everything else you'd associate with this iconic series, however it has an element of realism which makes it 100% more intense.

Craig is brilliant, the supporting cast are brilliant and the director, who funnily enough also made Goldeneye, proves Bond can live on as more than an all shagging, all fighting on ice, cartoon charter.

If you like all Bonds go watch it. If you liked the early ones, definitely go watch it, you're confidence will be restored. If you like Layer Cake go watch it. Oh who am I kidding? If you like being entertained, go and watch it.

Ten out of ten for all involved.
5/10
007 reboots
ebiros23 August 2011
007 series reboots with this one. Daniel Craig's first starring role as 007, and also as his first assignment as 00.

Everyone was wondering how Daniel Craig would do as 007, and in this movie, his professionalism shows. He's in top physical shape, and didn't back off an inch from the gritty Bond that he started out with. It's a departure from Sean Connery/ Terrence Young days of charming but ruthless James Bond. The modus operandi of Bond wasn't fleshed out so well in this first episode except that he's somewhat of a loose cannon, and stops at nothing to get his job done. But this becomes what gets him selected for the types of mission he is assigned to in the future.

Even as 007 movie, this is a beautiful movie with stunning scenery. The actors are beautiful too. 007 seems to be ready for the 21st century.

The only issue I have with this new Bond is that he seems to be trapped in the system that's run by bureaucracy, and computer information system. He looks too much like just a tool working for the government. M is too high strung, and tries to keep Bond on too tight of a leash. She takes up too much bandwidth in the story. I'd like to see Bond be more of himself, and work in an interesting ways with Felix Leiter or other "old" friends he may have. How Bond evolves, and develops his own character in the future is point of interest.

Good reboot for 007, and would like to see this series take its own direction in the future.
10/10
Bond is Back!
darrendebari26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sean Connery originated the role, George Lazenby wasn't tough enough for it, Roger Moore made it more fun and likable, Timothy Dalton made it more serious but humorless, and Pierce Brosnan really looked the part but his films didn't distinguish themselves and were simply pieces of other films strung together. Daniel Craig in Martin Campbell's CASINO ROYALE simply is the best James Bond the series has ever had.

Ever since Daniel Craig, who was excellent in LAYERCAKE, MUNICH, and ROAD TO PERDITION, was announced as the new Bond he was met with nasty comments from the media as well as CraignotBond.com. They said he was bland, blonde, too short, didn't know how to drive, and everything else you could think of. Then the media and the public actually saw his first Bond outing and everything changed. The film has been hailed as one of the best in years and Craig has been given the large majority of the praise.

The film is based upon Ian Fleming's first novel and has obviously been updated to a post 9/11 world. We get to see how Bond achieved his 007 status, how he fared on his first mission, how he first met Felix Leiter of the CIA, the mistakes he made, his interplay with females, and how he ultimately became James Bond. This is quite a tall order for one film and yet it delivers all the goods as Craig dazzles us with a very tough, funny, and human performance.

Craig also never lets us forget for one moment that James Bond is a killer. Ian Fleming's creation has finally been realized and the violence at times is very gritty and very realistic. There's even a terrorist suicide run at an airport that hits a nerve as Bond desperately hangs from an explosive truck and tries to stop it.

The film also boasts a terrific supporting cast, two action sequences that are by far the best of the series, exotic locations, no gadgets and gizmos, plenty of amazing stunt work minus CGI, and a wonderful love story. Eva Green is Vesper Lynd and her dialogue with Craig's Bond is witty, cool, and quite touching. Their relationship genuinely grows on us and we can't help to be a bit shaken by it's climax.

Judi Dench is also at her strongest as M and Mads Mikkelsen is a chilling villain. Caterino Murino is alluring and beautiful as Solange and Giancarlo Giannini is funny and sly as Mathis. Don't forget the understated Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter as well. The writing team of Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis also keep things fresh, exciting, and deadly serious.

Bond is ordered by MI6 to a high stakes poker game in Montenegro. There he must defeat La Chiffre at Casino Royale and prevent him from funding terrorists. La Chiffre is a master card player and not one to underestimate. Both men are gamblers, killers, and desperately want to win. Their eye contact speaks volumes despite the fact that La Chiffre's eyes weep blood at times. Bond's are icy blue and one can't help but to get lost in their magnetism.

The direction of Martin Campbell hits all the right notes as we'll find ourselves squirming at a brutal torture scene, thrilled by a construction site chase, on the edge over some rounds of Texas Hold Em, jarred by a nasty fight to the death in a stairwell, moved by a love story, and caught off guard by a twist near the conclusion.

In the end Craig and Campbell will have you clapping as my audience did at the 10:10pm showing on opening night. I can't remember the last time I heard clapping at the end of a Bond film. Yes, Daniel Craig is the definitive James Bond and he's back like you've never seen him before.
8/10
Marvellously energetic,exciting and fun.Welcome back 007.............
ianlouisiana1 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
O.K. so now there are two good James Bond movies - "Dr.No" and "Casino Royale",wildly disparate in almost every detail but both pulsing with energy and an odd kind of innocence. "C.R." starts off like a manic computer game played at "Expert" level with breathless action and frankly ridiculous stunts that build to a frantic climax before the movie slows down to let us recover our breath and James Bond is allowed a little time to develop into a 21st century version of Fleming's Cold War warrior. This is Miss J.Dench's best performance as "M",oddly humanised by being shown in bed with a man - presumably her husband as he is fast asleep. If it matters the plot diverges somewhat from the original,but if what you want is cinematic thrills then fill your boots. Mr D.Craig is nothing like any previous movie Bond and a good job too. With movies as good as this the franchise could run another 40 years.
Bond for Bond sakes ( may contain spoilers)
stanw-120 November 2006
Fine the movie was gritty and darker BUT that is not what Bond is. No Q no Moneypenny no one liners no gadgets no MR. Bond you are going to die and I will now tell you my whole plan... NO big scale mass good guy VS bad guy army ending...

The whole point of the Bond's is the slight camp. I mean not to include Q and his little factory well that is blasphemy. The car which is in some cases the silent partner who dies in a glorious save the hero type way. Not this time it was killed simple by swerving ( sad )

If I want gritty and dark I will go see other spy movies when I want a Bond film I want to see the gadgets the girls the chases and the getaways.

This was just an action movie with a guy named Bond OH YEAH and the whole martini thing WTF it is and will ALWAYS be SHAKEN NOT STIRRED
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Daniel Craig as Bond?
moviefanatic_858 February 2009
I was very opposed to the idea of Craig as the new James Bond and as a result this was the first Bond I have NOT seen in the theaters in nearly 10 yrs. Craig lacks all that we've come to expect from the character of Bond. He lacks the charisma and charm that the Bond character invented with Sean Connery and continued with Moore and Brosnan. This film was more of an attempt to merge the Bond franchise with the popular action films of today. The Bourne series for the most part. A far cry from the enjoyable and light-hearted action style I've come to expect from the James Bond series.

I wish I could recommend this film and Quantum of Solace (for that matter) as a welcome addition to the rest of the Bond films of the past age, but I cannot. The result of Daniel Craig as Bond is likely (in time) to result as the second fall in the series possibly more traumatic than Dalton's fall in the late 80's.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Amazing
maxlavens11 October 2021
Great take on bond, fabulous villain, thrilling story, unique, great story telling- a classic.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great movie but I think they shouldn't have used Daniel Craig
Salmationspawn3 July 2007
Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie.Wasn't really bond like because it was a lot more explosions and blunt fighting and not like finesse and sneaking around type stuff that bond usually does. I really think that Clive Owen would have been a better for a more classic bond movie. Daniel Craig is much better action solid crazy killer type. It was a great performance for the actor. A stepping stone into a truly fantastic career.I liked a classic bond theme much better because it showed that Americans could like a movie that wasn't just all explosions and craziness(not that that isn't great For example please see Live Free or Die Hard) But thats OK. At least it was a good movie and thats all that really matters in the end
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bourne aka bond or just a ripoff of Bourne
sonnycrockett2511 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie was just bad not to say it was any differ then the Bourne movie at all he has no tech no gadgets noting but a fake looking car accident which ya you would not live from regardless of who you are unless your machete they had cheesy stunts fake looking explosions and no real scene to say the least that I remember from this movie they have the super fast moving camera so you can't see anything or even make out what is going on at least video games you can see what's happen so you can react so you fell sick throw the hole thing and it makes me sick that they would even call it a James Bond movie no gadgets no cool villains no cool car just a man running around in dirty cloths trying to do something that is not able to draw you in long enough and is not important enough to take seriously should have been a Steven segal movie.
9/10
Best ever JB movie since i'm borne ...nothing will compare to this one
scanteieioan22 November 2006
Splendid, i'm a big fan of JB, and this movie did not disappoint me. The interpretation was sublime. The actors played extremely...i will never forget this episode.

The soundtrack is extraordinary...i played "you know my name " several hours and i want more....for the first time since my first JB movie, i can feel the story, the playing, the music...All in one, this is a must see for all people...

My words can't face the value of this show...JB is BACK !!! Great job to all cast ! Magnific work !

If you don't see this movie, u'll regret every second of your life. If u're a JB fan, you probably seen the movie at least 2 times till now !
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A good Action flick...but the 007 fuel is missing
oscorp-124 November 2006
I agree with the person who says that people who are rating this film 10 out of 10 must be hired people by the production or something. It wasn't that great! Everyone's so determined to love this movie because it's James Bond. Personally I think Pierce Brosan, Roger Moore, and of course the legendary Sean Connery were the best bonds. I liked the old genre with the lasers and super villains and cool gadgets because thats what Bond was about! It's like if you took the harry potter movies and took out the magic and tried to make realistic: it would suck! Not that this movie wasn't a good action flick it's just that as a bond film i think it was no good. Also Daniel Craig is seriously a bad bond: He looks un bondly, he loses his cool several times in the film, and he's too dark. Anyways many people disagree with me but i'm going to stay loyal to the old bond.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Casino Royale: Bond Revitalised.
georgetay-9850711 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A reboot of the James Bond franchise, Casino Royale offers everything you could possibly want from a Bond film or an action/ spy film in general. The opening chase scene alone lets you know what you're in for. Incredible practical stunts and fantastically choreographed fight scenes that are raw enough to always feel tense.

The film also has great character moments and extended poker games that are gripping and as tense as the action scenes.

Daniel Craig is perfect as a brash, cocky up -and - coming Bond. He's violent but vulnerable, he's not the detached murderer he'll become in Quantum and Skyfall. The events of this film shape and define the character for the rest of Craig's tenure as Bond.

The supporting characters are also top notch. Judi Dench as always is great as M, Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and Giancarlo Giannini as Rene Mathis are great additions to the cast.

Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre is easily the best Bond villain of the franchise. He's ruthless, smart and desperate. He manipulates Bond and uses his arrogance against him.

However, it's Eva Green as Vesper Lynd who steals the show. Unlike most Bond girls who came before, Vesper is more than just a pretty face and is actually smarter than Bond and just as capable in different ways. She leaves a lasting impression on Bond that defines his character throughout the series. They're relationship is believable and the actor's chemistry is great.

Vesper's betrayal of James and her eventual death is actually a really sad moment. Made even more tragic by the fact that Bond was able to open the gate and get to her and that Vesper's betrayal was all for nothing.

The opening credits are also the best in the franchise for me with the amazing aesthetics of the playing cards and the silhouetted figures engaged in fights. Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" was an awesome song choice that perfectly represented a new, less experienced Bond.

Overall, Casino Royale was exactly what the franchise needed and saved it from dying. It's the Best James Bond film and one of the best action films of the 2000s.
1/10
This movie sucks!
guardgirl1197 April 2007
It was a terrible movie. A waste of about 2 and half hours of my life. The other bond movies were so much better Daniel Craig sucks and he is ugly. Plus i was confused about the time setting of the movie. if the movie is indeed a prequel then the movie should appear as if it had occurred prior to all the previous movies instead after. If they wanted to make a film in the style that they choose do it in why not just do a next movie instead of a prequel and drop the story line of being a new stated 00'. Besides that some of the action scenes were alright but not brilliant or memorable. Just not a good film well hyped but not up to expectation.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The most exciting action film of 2006, and possibly the best Bond movie ever...
MaxBorg8928 December 2006
After the increasingly overblown Pierce Brosnan run (beginning with the great GoldenEye and ending with the shallow, if fun Die Another Day), the 007 franchise needed a shot in the arm to conquer audiences again. Hence the decision to reinvent the series, much like Christopher Nolan did with Batman, by adapting the first ever Bond novel, Casino Royale (already filmed as a hit-and-miss spoof in 1967).

As this is our favorite spy's first adventure, he's quite different from the previous characterizations: he hasn't achieved his 00 status yet (something he takes care of in the black and white opening sequence), he doesn't have a specific taste regarding martinis (when asked if he wants his drink shaken or stirred, he replies: "Do I look like I give a damn?") and he makes mistakes (such as killing an unarmed man and blowing up an embassy - in front of a camera!). Not exactly the kind of employee M (Judi Dench) is that proud of. She does however give him an opportunity to redeem himself by participating in a poker game at the Montenegro Casino Royale. The reason? One of the players is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a man known for financing terrorists. If he wins, he could walk away with at least 15 million dollars, a sum that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

The true joy of Casino Royale is the realistic tone: there are no silly gadgets (in fact, Q doesn't appear at all in this movie), no superhuman stunts (well, except for a 20-minute chase scene at the beginning of the film), no sci-fi elements whatsoever. This time around, Bond is not an invulnerable macho guy with spectacular weapons; he actually gets hurt quite often, and reacts pretty brutally, using whatever object he can find. Much has been said about Daniel Craig, mostly offensive remarks concerning his hair, but I actually think he could be the best Bond ever. I know that statement is close to heresy, but here's a fact: all the previous Bond films, even those with Sean Connery, focused more on the character's womanizing than on his violent nature (the exception would be Timothy Dalton's final Bond outing, Licence to Kill, which was perceived as too rough when it was released in 1989). Craig, on the other hand, is a believable assassin, in terms of looks as well as mannerisms (the fact that he's already played his fair share of "morally flexible" people, as seen in Munich or Infamous, also helps). He's a darker, more interesting Bond, probably the closest an actor's ever come to the true spirit of Ian Fleming's character. Sure, there is romance, as always, but the core of the movie is the fact that Bond is, first and foremost, a killer, much like his modern-day cinematic heir Jason Bourne (an obvious influence in terms of style).

That said, the film is far from being a one-man show, the supporting characters proving meatier than usual: Dench is as impeccable as always, and the same ought to be said of Jeffrey Wright, who brings Felix Leiter back to the franchise after a 17-year absence; Mikkelsen is a riveting villain, his charm deriving from the fact that he's not interested in world domination, not to mention every bit as vulnerable as the hero (the poker game is actually his last chance to please his superiors, otherwise he'll die), and Eva Green is the best Bond girl since Diana Rigg. Instead of the usual lame sexual innuendo, the dialogue between 007 and his female partner is sharp and enjoyable ("You're not my type", he tells her; "Smart?", she replies with a touch of sarcasm; "Single", deadpans Bond). The performances are probably the main reason Casino Royale is the most emotionally relevant entry in the series since On Her Majesty's Secret Service (Royale's ending is much more satisfying, though): the new Bond is a human hero (or rather antihero), a character the audience can relate to when things go bad, like in the infamous torture sequence, so painful it actually provides a reason to question the PG-13 rating (alongside the opening restroom murder, it also makes the viewer understand why Quentin Tarantino was interested in directing the film).

Dark, adult and compelling, Casino Royale is the 007 movie fans have been expecting for ages, and by the time cinema's favorite secret agent finally delivers THAT line, even the most skeptical will have to admit it: Daniel Craig IS James Bond, and that's not going to change for quite a while.
10/10
Bond reinvented in a mind blowing way.
moviegeek31020 November 2006
To tell you the truth, I had never seen a James Bond film before "Casino Royale". Yeah, I'm a movie buff, yet had never seen one of cinema's most iconic characters on screen. That means, unfortunately, I won't be able to compare this Bond film to the others. That also means I won't be biased against anything, saying things like, "Pierce Brosnan was so much better, no one will ever replace him." But in my unbiased opinion, Daniel Craig as the new, darker, blond Bond did amazing. And I'm wagering, even if I'd seen the twenty-one other films, I would still say Craig's was the best. His deliverance is gritty, and oh-so suave. Every man in the world will wish to be as smooth and suave as Craig's Bond.

"Casino Royale" opens in black-and-white showing James getting his double O status in a slam bang way. The film then proceeds with psychedelic opening credits, minus the famous Bond theme, but with an equally cool song. For the next twenty minutes a huge, mind-blowing chase scene ensues as Bond chases a bomb maker in Africa. This scene will get your adrenaline pumping big time, and the rush never stops. Clocking in at 140 minutes, not one scene is boring, or drags. It makes every dollar worth it, you feel that you finally got what you paid for. Hand to hand combat, a high stakes Texas Hold-Em game, a cool Aston Martin car, and just about every other cool thing you can think of, and that's just in the first hour. So, basically, I loved "Casino Royale", LOVED IT! The plot was great as well - I hear it's the best Bond plot yet- but it is too complicated to explain on paper. It's pretty much a reinvention of James Bond, like what Christopher Nolan did for "Batman Begins", director Martin Cambell does for this franchise. It's Bond…James Bond for a new generation.

What made the film even better was the audience. When a particularly awesome car gets totaled the audience let out a collective, "Nooooooooooo!" It was so much fun. And the theater was in digital, so the picture and sound were crystal clear. It made my first Bond experience all the more fun. That's what it is, just plain, good ol' fun, as well as a great piece of film-making. You know, I bet all the critics, and folks who practically rioted over the decision of Daniel Craig to don the suit and bow tie, are kicking themselves. The other actors including Judi Dench as M, and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd did extremely well. And an honorable sentence goes to Mads Mikkelsen as the new Bond baddie, who is so bad, he weeps blood. I can't wait to see "Casino Royale" again. It was the best time I've had in a movie all year. And the best line in a movie all year goes to this line; Bartender: Would you like your martini shaken or stirred. James Bond: Does it look like a give a damn. I give it 10 out of 10. "Casino Royale" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violent action, a scene of torture, and sexual content.
10/10
This Bond Is Gritty And Realistic. Bond Franchise Moves in Right Direction.
treeskier8024 May 2007
Casino Royale has set the stage for a fantastic rebirth of the James Bond film series. Since Pierce Brosnan had taken over the role, the series had dwindled toward the typical cartoonish action films of the day. With Daniel Craig as Bond and Director Martin Campbell at the helm, the series is again licensed to kill.

The story and characters are now realistic. The gadgets and stunts are not over-the-top. The plot is engaging and the opening and ending music is cool.

If you prefer the laughs that Moore and Brosnan brought to Bond, then you will probably not appreciate Casino Royale. But if you prefer the gritty character Connery started in his first few films and who Dalton tried to revisit in the 1980s, then by all means watch this movie.

Because this film was made the way it was, it was hugely successful, and this just might give us Bond for another 40 years!
1/10
Why hard-core Bond fans do not like Casino Royale
harry20151415 April 2007
First of all, I did not rate this movie as awful judging it as a normal film but as a bond film. As a sucker for bond films, I watched it twice in theaters and I must admit that, viewing it from a non-Bond perspective, it was quite good. However, I am absolutely disappointed by the selection of Daniel Craig as Bond. Though an outstanding actor in dramatic films (Sylvia, Love is the Devil, Road to Perdition etc.), the Bond persona does not fit him at all. Some would say that he introduced an unconventional image of Bond and that he is the best one ever to incarnate the role. In my point of view, this constitutes blasphemy. Yes, his performance is well-balanced and yes, he may seem masculine enough but I cannot, and never will, accept him as Bond.

Actually, it's his face but we cannot blame only Daniel Craig for this. The screenwriters, though loyal enough to the original Fleming novel, decided not to present this film as a Bond film but as a usual action-espionage movie. That is why, I believe, the film appealed not only to Bond fans (not hard-core ones) but also to a wider range of movie-goers. However, I'm convinced that the film would look so much better with Brosnan or Hugh Jackman as Bond. Especially Hugh Jackman would give to the role the same mentality that Craig provided but it would also be combined with much more appropriate looks for our favorite spy.
8/10
Eva Green? Really?
jakebrann12 May 2020
For a James Bond movie they couldn't do better than getting Eva Green to play opposite of Bond? She isn't believable as sexy eye candy for a minute! She's got no body, no curves and doesn't for a minute fit the "Bond Girl" image. I found her very annoying and not right for the role they gave her.

It's a BOND movie! They can do better than that!
2 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Great reboot but no the greatest movie
charliep1411 November 2015
This is the perfect example of how to reboot a franchise: Casino Royale has brought Bond to the twenty first century: made it modern and relevant to a new generation of movie goers; in sync with its time and without some of the corny gadgets etc. that old school fans love but just show their age.

The first third of the movie goes back to the beginnings of the characters, effectively reintroduces him, makes him fresh and young while serving great action scenes, cool settings and overall very good pacing.

The second act somewhat loses its way: the at-first-entertaining poker scenes become unnecessarily convoluted -one could even forget why they are playing in the first place- and the love interest is a little forced.

It does get better in the final act: back to the cool action and dramatic pacing.

Overall a great Bond film - but not without its flaws ; like the title character?
8/10
The movie is on the right track, but not entirely.
orourkec-292-26915526 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I want to say that I'm thankful toward Casino Royale for disposing of the silliness and over-the-top gadgetry that plagued recent Bond movies and for re-inventing 007 Bond as being caustic, haunting and tense, adjectives that I think best suit him. However, and in my honest opinion, I have to say that I didn't think that Daniel Craig was the perfect choice to be cast as 007 Bond because for me I imagine a 007 Bond spy/agent as having black hair and brown eyes and Daniel Craig, unfortunately, wasn't that: he has blond hair, blue-pale eyes, and he has mouse-like ears which bothered me. His round face and size however was no problem to me. When it comes to action sequences, I was disappointed and annoyed because almost all of them did not make a strong impact on me and the plot. I thought that the main Bond woman was beautiful and that she wore beautiful dresses, albeit (maybe) lacking something crucial: sensual charm. I also thought that the movie had a strong thematic richness, suitably appropriate violence, fun, thought- provoking dialog and some inventive stuff such as Bond fighting a villain on a construction site and jumping from one crane to another, Bond driving a tractor to try to catch a villain, Bond showing up at M's place without permission, the way Bond was tortured in the film by the main villain, the airport chase scene and more still. My rating: 8.0/10
Casino Royale (2006)
samgiannn16 April 2016
I'm not a huge James Bond fan, but I like a good spy thriller, and Daniel Craig's Bond movies have been some of the best in the past few years. I went back to his first Bond outing, Casino Royale, which is arguably Craig's best. In Casino Royale, James Bond has been armed with a license to kill and goes out on his first mission as 007 where he must defeat a weapons dealer in a high stakes game of poker. This movie serves as a reboot of the Bond franchise and shows a new story arc for Craig's Bond, so we see a more vulnerable and less experienced James Bond. There are still some ridiculously fantastic action sequences to behold, but it's obvious that he's not nearly as sharp as he will come to be. The action scenes aren't even the best part of the movie though. The second act takes place almost entirely around a poker table, changing from a spy movie to a more contained thriller. It's suspenseful and incredibly well acted. Casino Royale gives one of the more memorable Bond movies that I've ever seen and set up Craig for a great run in the role.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best Bond movie for my generation...
Valkonian12 December 2006
First, let me state I am a huge, huge Bond fan. I've seen all the Bond movies many times. The last few Bond movies I was quite disappointed. Not so much disappointed in Mr. Brosnan but more so in the plots. They were very bad and not Bond-like.

The franchise did everything right in this Bond movie. Let's start with Bond. Daniel Craig is the best Bond yet. Sean Connery was my favorite, but he was my favorite for the Cold War era of Bond movies. Today is different, the Cold War is over, and Daniel Craig fits the Bond character superbly. If anyone has read the books, you will know that the James Bond character is somewhat ruthless, harsh, yet sophisticated. Sean Connery played that very well, Timothy Dalton played it even better. Even Brosnan wasn't that bad as Bond. Craig just oozes toughness and a cold heart sometimes that makes you say "Is this really Bond?" Yes it is.

While the plot of Casino Royale can be a bit stretched, the scenes are lovely and the pace is great. Plenty of action with some nice poker playing and lovely women to tone down the peaks. I would have preferred the original game, but poker will do. As I stated, the Cold War is done with, so bring on the most favored card game around - poker.

What I also enjoyed about the Bond series were the casual humor. I found myself laughing, out loud mind you, a few times during this movie. That rarely happens when I'm watching a movie in a theater, unless it's a comedy. Again, they fit in the humor nicely in this film.

I highly recommend this film to any Bond fan, as well as anyone looking for a nice action movie. I'd gladly go see this movie a few more times in the theater, and I can't say that for many of the current movies coming out of Hollywood.

I look forward to seeing Daniel Craig in future Bond movies!
5/10
Waste of time
maverick_anp26 December 2011
I saw this movie yesterday. This was the first Bond flick I watched and won't watch any more (at least till Daniel Craig is the protagonist).

I'd learnt that bond has many gadgets, the movies pack wit and excitement and all ... but found nothing. The movie also unfortunately lacks a good looking female lead (Her being so skinny was irritating to me) . The romance between Craig and Eva green appears forced and dull (apart from boring). The plot has innumerable loopholes and will leave you frustrated. The climax is the worst part of the film. Daniel Crag is very dull and unimpressive. The game of poker that happens in the "Casino Royale" is unbearable, at least certainly to those who do not know poker .
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Best Bond Film
daniellawson-14-78705727 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
POSITIVES:

1) Daniel Craig gives an immense performance as Bond, bringing a grit and humanity to the character that had rarely been seen before 2) The dark and more grounded tone that the series started here was incredibly welcome. The fight scenes all have a real sense of pain and the film does an incredibly good job of engaging audiences with its realistic world building 3) The film does a fantastic job of building up the character of Bond throughout the film, so that the tragedy he suffers at the end coupled with finally getting the "Bond, James Bond" line and the Bond Theme at the end really feels like a deserved pay off 4) One of the best Bond Themes and opening credits sequences

NEGATIVES:

1) There are a couple of plot holes / continuity errors. For example, in the casino when Bond is first asked to enter the passcode he would like to set, he definitely doesn't enter VESPER, but towards the end VESPER is somehow revealed to be the passcode 2) Some of the dialogue was poor, especially the love dialogue between Bond and Vesper, it didn't work for me.
8/10
where it all began
zoeyneo9 April 2007
I would not classify myself as a real James Bond "fan," I have only seen a couple in the whole series, but as a generally aware adult American, I am familiar enough that I can recognize the style. So I went into the theater as the average movie-goer, no expectations, not a lot of excitement built up, but open to whatever I'm gonna get. And... it knocked my socks off. One of the opening action sequences, where Bond chases someone up a giant construction crane, was brilliantly choreographed, and set the bar high for the remaining 2+ hours. (This is a very long movie, but it deserves to be.) But what stuck with me most was the vulnerability that Daniel Craig shows in his character. I always imagine James Bond as a hardened killer spy, and a smooth talking ladies' man that can't be tamed. This film lets us in on how he became that way, and shows him as a man, not a fictional superhuman. Casino Royale is a great story on its own, but with all the added history and mystique built up around James Bond, it is all that much deeper, and that much rewarding.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
SUPERB
truthnwosu26 May 2020
Daniel's Craig performance was wonderful but the Film's twisted plot, elaborate storyline contributed to what will be the best james bond movie if not the best. Every minute was worth it, every second was breathtaking, this film deserves more than its getting i could've given it an 11 but 10 was the limit. If any producer wants to make an action franchise, they need to watch this and understand what movie making is. A MUST WATCH. A MUST, DON'T PUT IN ON YOUR WATCHLIST. WATCH IT.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Long but excellent action/adventure/thriller. Which is based on the first adventure for James Bond.
hu6758 April 2007
The newest recruit from the sector of double agent zero from MI6 from the British Secret Service. 007 Secret Agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is up against an ruthless, dread financier named Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Which Bond must defeat this man by winning a casino tournament. Along with Bond, the very attractive Vesper (Eva Green) from the British Treasury Official. Which Vesper makes sure that Bond doesn't over spend the money. But nothing what it seems to be and things aren't planned well as Bond thinks.

Directed by Martin Campbell (Criminal Law, The Mask of Zorro, No Escape) made an extremely entertaining action/adventure/spy thriller. Based on a novel by Ian Flaming. Which it's the first novel of the Bond Series. Craig is dynamic in his debut as James Bond. Which Craig is the best Bond since Sean Connery. Mikkelsen offers a scene-stealing performance as the villain and the stunning Eva Green is strong in her role. This is probably the most expansive Bond film ever made but it is also one of the best in years.

DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. This two disc set has plenty of interesting featurettes. Disc two has two featurettes, entertaining documentary titled "Bond Girls are Forever" and a music video. This complex thriller goes on longer than it should but thanks to the terrific cast, vivid locations and production designs keeps you to the edge of your seat. The climatic poker game sequence is one of the highlights. Oscar-Winner:Judi Dench returns as M. Director:Campbell had his hands previously making a Bond movie titled "Goldeneye" with Pierce Brosnan making his debut as Bond. This is the true adaptation of Flaming's book, since it was made as a telefilm in the 1950's and a spoof in the late 1960's. This latest adaptation is written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Oscar-Winner:Paul Haggis (Crash, A Flag to Our Fathers, Million Dollar Baby). Since Purvis and Wade wrote films together like Die Another Day, Johnny English, The World is Not Enough. Super 35. (****/*****).
10/10
The BEST Bond Movie in Years
tripxyde17 November 2006
CASINO ROYALE is set in the early days of James Bond, so we won't be seeing a hundred percent the James Bond we already know. Instead, we are being treated into HOW he becomes the man that we know he is. This progression is excellently done. A very smart way of portraying subtle changes in Bond's psyche, and such a storyline that does answer many James Bond questions that many have long asked.

Martin Campbell is a sure and safe bet to creating and re-introducing this new world of James Bond. After all, he was the one who pulled off giving the Pierce Brosnan Bond a grand welcome introduction with "GoldenEye". His sense of tight consistency and balance gives CASINO ROYALE no room for tackiness, sloppiness, and dullness. Employing old-fashioned stunts, he even succeeds in creating one very exhilarating and breath-taking chase scene that highlights in towering cranes. A sequence that literally takes you to dizzying heights.

LE CHIFFRE, as portrayed by Mads Mikkelsen, is one of those cool James Bond villains, which create an unsettling diabolical presence whenever they enter a room. But this movie provides many levels of twists and turns that may take the attention away from Le Chiffre. Don't expect Le Chiffre to be the kind of stereotyped Bond villain that has super-villain abilities, that has pet scorpions, or that is spoofed by Austin Power's Dr. Evil. He certainly has no sharks that shoot lasers.

Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is dazzlingly beautiful. She succeeds in playing a character that does indeed have the strength and the influence to bring in a touch of style and a sense of change in James Bond making him the man that he is. Her performance creates a fabulous chemistry with Craig's Bond. A chemistry that certainly brings out both actor & actresses' impressive acting talent. And may I add that Eva Green is far more beautiful in one scene where she has no make-up on. If I was a cartoon, my jaw would've fallen off.

And about the new Bond, DANIEL CRAIG..? Well, Initially, many ladies hate him. They say he looks short and ugly like a villain. But then again, many of us guys cheer a James Bond that has more of a tough-guy action movie image. The kind that does enter a room of bad guys and leaving it with remnants of chaos. Many of us cheer for him because he personifies an action hero image that we could relate to, rugged, tough, and rebellious. But the film really reveals how much Daniel Craig proves himself to be more than worthy of being the new James Bond. Apart from his rugged physique, he delivers more spiky charm with both arrogance and a sensitive side of Bond which makes him a complex character, and that is what makes him very interesting. This film even shows a far more sensitive, loving, and romantic Bond than in any other James Bond movie (he actually says the magic words "I Love You" in this one). Far beyond the romantic version that George Lazenby has portrayed in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (wherein Bond got married). Craig brings to life a more human Bond. One that actually knows how to care for something important to him and his soul, and has a nasty sense of humor even when he's being tortured.

CASINO ROYALE pushes for a more believable Bond in a believable setting. There would be no volcanoes here that reveal to be mountain fortresses for villains, nor are there underwater palaces or outer space stations run by uniformed bad guys. But there are some pretty simple gadgets not worth mentioning. My guess is, that just like "From Russia with Love", this movie sticks to the plain action-thriller formula from the Fleming books. Perhaps some of us can wait for the gadgets till the next Bond movie may come.

The film is said to take James Bond "back to his roots" in a film that would be similar to From Russia with Love where the focus was on character and plot rather than high-tech gadgets and visual effects. An issue which would surely revolutionize the James Bond genre. Incredible visuals would always be part of the James Bond genre. But after more than three decades of Bond movies marinated with overblown visuals, you would think that it's high time they got back to the roots of Bond; the thrill, the suspense, the espionage, the intrigue. We are in a movie age where many moviegoers have become desensitized by visuals. Perhaps the same reason why "Exorcist: The Beginning" for instance, has not worked, because it relied on visuals rather than innovating raw refreshing ideas that may hit a cerebral appeal rather than the visual aspect. After years of having witnessed movies such as "The Matrix" and the "Star Wars" prequels, some people would be less surprised by stunts and explosions that viewers could easily dissect. CASINO ROYALE does not go that direction. It brings you back to how Bond was written the way Ian Fleming would've wanted him to be.

And indeed, CASINO ROYALE does possess faithfulness with the original book by Ian Fleming from which it is based on, although there have been minimal revisions which sticks the storyline close to present-time standards.

By the time I was done watching the movie, I have concluded that CASINO ROYALE is THE best James Bond movie I have ever seen. And one that has made me consider Daniel Craig one of the best Bonds, only second to the gold standard James Bond himself, Sean Connery. It is highly amusing to think that the press releases and the trailers of this film initially got mixed reactions from the public, some even going so far as to hating it. Now, they are proved wrong, because CASINO ROYALE is the finest James Bond movie that will surely remain timeless in film history.
8/10
Bond Is Back!
jb-4483 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finally! Bond is back in a good movie.. It is bleak and it is more rough (as you can tell with the opening scenes in B/W this movie puts Bond in a new light and it's all thanks to Danny Craig. I'm sick of all the naysayers he is very good. The best Bond since Sean? Yes, yes and yes. The storyline is also good. I am a mad poker fan and James Bond+ Action+ Hot Babe+ Poker!!! = Awesome Film. Eva Green is sizzling as the new Bond girl with those green eyes (Cue cat growling sound). Best Bond girl in a long time. The Dame herself also performs well as usual and the directing is also good. I was shocked when Bond resigned but I knew it wouldn't last long. I loved the ending too. That jerk got what he deserved. As usual, a good way to spend 2 hours

8/10
7/10
Bond #21: Qualifying for the Olympics
unbrokenmetal24 March 2016
In the first half, Bond is almost constantly running and jumping, it looks like the qualifying for the Olympic Games. Especially the scene on the construction site is spectacular, the inspiration seem to come from Jackie Chan movies or similar Eastern productions. The chase begins in Africa, continues on the Bahamas and with a bomb threat at Miami airport. Then Bond goes to Montenegro where he is to face the villain Le Chiffre for a game of cards. Much more than an ordinary game – a psychological duel...

With the first of Daniel Craig's Bonds, the producers wanted to make clear: it's an action movie. However, the best scenes sometimes are the quiet ones. For example, in the middle of the movie is a scene when Bond talks to Vesper Lynd about his plans. It's a pleasure to see how they are testing the waters, trying to find out more about each other without giving anything away. And then there is the moment of role reversal when Lynd tells Bond which jacket to wear, his surprised look is priceless. 'Casino Royale' carefully attempts to modernize the franchise and deliberately breaks a few (minor) rules, for example when Bond is asked if he prefers his Martini shaken or stirred and replies: 'Do I look like I give a damn?'
My name is Blond
edgeofreality9 March 2021
A new blonde Bond with more acting ability if less tongue in cheek- aside from some in-jokes and one rather tasteless mention of a little finger. I was impressed by his athleticism and total centeredness in the role. Did I miss Roger Moore and the plastic sexiness of past Bond girls? You bet. Here we have two brunettes, one horsy the other neurotic. The villain is good though and finally has the sense to go for Bond's most prized possession. Does it emasculate him? Not at all, so so much for the new realism, but every male Bond fan in the audience will never be the same.
1 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig is Great
theresamgill12 June 2018
I love love love the opening to Casino Royale. It's a perfect blend of infusing classic Bond while showing the world hey, this is the new direction we plan on taking this series. Admittedly, Daniel Craig is an unconventional look, but his charm will win you over. The parkour of the action sequence is really fun to watch (and Johnny English Reborn basically spoofs it and it's hilarious), but it's the opening scene that puts this as the best intro. The theme is a good song, not great, but fits well; the animation is clever and works well, and that's what puts "You Know my Name" as the 2nd best theme.



It doesn't matter who you are, if you prefer blondes over brunettes, or whatever it may be. Eva Green is the best Bond Girl in the Craig franchise. She brings the wit to match the man in the tux at every step. I'm a fan of Mads Mikkelsen, and he would be the best villain if it weren't for the #1 pick. Judi Dench is a solid choice, and she actually is reprising her role as M from the previous series. Jeffrey Wright also brings quality to the film, so I believe we've settled that the cast works well.



As far as story is concerned, there is a lot of good and a little bad. If you have establishing shots of well-known areas, putting title cards to tell you where the characters are currently at is cheap and dubs down the audience; this is something this film avoids even if it's brought into Quantum of Solace solely to make sure that sequel was a disappointment. The point is that you'll almost always see me praise subtlety. That really isn't the case here. I'd probably recommend subtitles actually for this film because details are sometimes given in low voices that's hard to pick up. The plot moves to a new action scene, or the characters suddenly display new motivations; and if you aren't paying attention to everything going on, chances are there will be something confusing. In fact, this was probably around my third viewing of the film and I picked up on new ideas while still being in the dark about others-- there are movies like Inception and The Prestige that work these details and foreshadowing effectively (both obviously Christopher Nolan films), but it's more of an annoyance here. And as we're on the topic of story, the writing and dialogue gets half-credit. The movie is way too choppy, but there are still some great quips:

Bond: Vodka-martini

Bartender: Shaken or stirred?

Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?

And my favorite:

Vesper (Eva Green): Am I going to have a problem with you, Bond?

Bond: No, don't worry. You're not my type.

Vesper: Smart?

Bond: Single.



On a final note for the story, I'm a sucker for well-constructed scenes like the development of the poker hands, and the torture scene is one of the best in any film. The confusion I've been referring to is mainly in the last 30 minutes. I'll say no more than that, but it's kind of hard to put a finger on what the goal was or what went wrong. These closing scenes aren't bad-- the climax is an awesome set-- but I don't believe it works to the degree the movie hopes for. Overall, the cast is all solid, but it's not the film's fault that the #1 pick has a better ensemble; what really brings the film down to the 2 slot is some choppy scenes and a confused plot. And if those are the critiques I have to give it, that should tell you that this really is a good film. It gets my recommendation, and if you're somebody who hasn't seen a Daniel Craig James Bond film, there's no better place to start than here. You can find this review and dozens of others at gillipediamoviereviews.blogspot.com
7/10
new Bond
kairingler12 July 2013
in this one we go back to before James Bond was a 00 and had a License to Kill. this is a re make of Casino Royal 67 not considered in the Bond library. Daniel Craig is hard edged, tough in you're face and downright plain nasty. reminds you of the original Bond, .. Mr. Sean Connery, not since Connery has Bond been this tough,, the opening sequence was awesome. tell a lot about the early Bond. we go to Casino Royal where Bond is set to play a high stakes poker game with one of our main bad guys,, if he wins that won't look good because it will look like he's showing off and showing up the bad guy,, solution lose one and see what happens next.. this was a little hard to follow but i'm sure that when I watch it again I will begin to put the pieces together,, I think Daniel Craig should be Bond for awhile,, next bond definitely Jason Statham.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Start of My James Bond
mirosuionitsaki223 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This could be the start of me being a James Bond fan. Casino Royale was the first James Bond movie I've seen and I have to say, it was great. I love the action, and I love the romance. It's basically hotness shoved in one movie.

I don't really understand casinos and all that, so I can't really describe the movie and the plot. But I did like it. I also loved the end. "I'm Bond. James Bond." It's just so awesome. James Bond is awesome.

I've heard they replaced Pierce Brosnan with Daniel Craig. I've seen some part of another James Bond movie and I have to say, Daniel Craig is as good as Pierce Brosnan. It doesn't make a difference. Just enjoy the writing and the plot and the action, and you will feel like you are watching Die Another Day. Except, this film is better.

Also, I have one more thing to say. I don't really like Mads Mikkelsen. He's a bad actor. They should replace him with.. I don't know. Just someone else who fits the part for Le Chiffre.

I recommend this movie for all James Bond fans, and also Brosnan fans.
9/10
James Bond rewrites his own rulebook for one of his greatest entries.
cartesianthought24 December 2015
The gadgets, humor and giant lasers were certainly fun, but after a while the series was getting a little bit too silly. Casino Royale offers completely new experience for the long-standing franchise. Using Fleming's novel of the same name, infused with the politics of a post 9/11 world, the film has a strong story with believable characters.

The first half of the film is action-based, creating scenes like the parkour chase and the airport terrorism plot to perfection. Daniel Craig's Bond is a game-changer: rough, tough, morose and thuggish, but also romantic and vulnerable. The 2nd half settles into the high stakes poker game in which a terrorist financier tries to win back his lost fortune. There's a couple of welcome twists and turns along with a strong ending, making this one of the greatest Bond films ever.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A great James Bond, even something else than a james bond!
AvionPrince1621 August 2021
I really loved this James Bond. It have some great moments: the game part, the love scenes with Vesper and the problem with James Bond and "M", the action scenes, the vilain, the more human part of James Bond and some good revelation, mysteries trough this movie. Its clearly a great James Bond. And it have a great ending. We care about James Bond mental state. I recommend this movie!
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very good, but not excellent
tandukpanjang16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As has been widely reported, Casino Royale IS the best Bond film in well over a decade. Based on the first Bond novel, but set in the post 9-11 world where terrorists are the enemy d'jour and governments "miss the Cold War" (to quote M in the movie), this 007 is a raw, almost bad-guy type character, who could have easily been a nasty villain had he not joined MI6. Not even close to suave, charming, or debonair, he has a huge chip on his shoulder and no time for witty banter. He doesn't want to love and prefers married women because they have no strings - or expectations - attached. SPOILER: The movie falters, though, at about the 1:45 mark. This is when Bond falls in love with the government accountant sent to manage his finances at the high-stakes poker game. As we find how she is involved with the bad guys and takes Bond for a ride, I wondered why it becomes so obvious to everyone BUT Bond. The scene in the hospital, when Bond has her type in his bank password, would have been a perfect time to unveil her dishonesty and have 007 do something as bold and crass as earlier in the film. bond falls in love in other films, but - since this is the 1st Bond novel - they should have avoided it in this one.
9/10
Well done, 007 Best Bond in over 25 years
paladinmtk25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Original novel, good updated plot fast-paced movie never seems to lose steam, even at 2-hours plus. Unique comedy of situation in short "rest" breaks from high-stakes Texas Hold-'Em Tournament, Bond almost gets killed a couple of times, then comes back to the table bloodless with a changed shirt, and his opponents notice! 'Mr. Bond, you've changed your shirt-is the pressure of the game getting to you?' Bond becomes less super-human and more flawed during the progression of the movie, both physically and mentally as Spider-man like stunts in opening action sequence where nothing can harm him turn into anybody can punch him in the face by the second hour. Bond girl's motivations and actions become less credible in final 20 minutes. Flawed ending, but what the heck, its better than 90% of the junk out there, and wins on its own merits. Schindler's List it's not, but still heck of a lot of fun. Should you go see it? Sure!
Bring it on!
rogerdarlington19 November 2006
Bond is back after a four-year absence ("Die Another Day"). "Casino Royale" was the first James Bond book published in 1953; it was the only one turned into a spoof in the movie of 1967; now it reappears as the film in the 44 year old franchise. But boldly, bravely and ultimately brilliantly producers Barbara Broccoli & Michael G Wilson have totally reinvented the brand while returning to Martin Campbell ("GoldenEye") as director.

The core of the reworking is a script by Paul Haggis ("Crash") and others which takes us right back to the beginning before Bond even had his double 'O' licence. There seems to be a current fashion for visiting the origins of heroes who have had previous outings - witness "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns" (both excellent movies). In this guise, we have a very different, more credible, more post 9/11 Bond: one so serious that he makes very few jokes indeed, one so capable that he uses his muscles more than machines, one so real that he bruises and bleeds, one so arrogant he makes mistakes, and one so vulnerable that he falls in love.

The triumph of the re-branding though is the choice of 38 year old, blond and blue-eyed Daniel Craig ("Layer Cake") as the sixth Bond. Much criticised when his selection was announced, his fresh and assured performance is a total rebuttal of his detractors. This is a very physical Bond and, in total contrast to all the other 007 movies, we see much more of his body than those of the women he meets. The total nakedness and appalling brutality of the torture sequence in the book is faithfully transposed to the screen, so that we literally and metaphorically see Bond as we have never seen him before.

As the Treasury money-keeper Vesper Lynd, Eva Green ("Kingdom Of Heaven") has such a cut-class English accent that you would not know she is the sixth French Bond girl. The word play and psychological sparring between James and Vesper gives real edge to the evolving relationship. The Danish Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre may be a less imposing and outlandish villain than is usually the case in Bond movies, but that only underlines the greater sense of realism here.

Indeed the film stays close to the plotting and the spirit of the book, although the chemin-de-fer game in France is transposed to one of poker in Montenegro. The movie even makes use of the final line of the novel when Bond states "The bitch is dead".

In short, this is the best Bond film since "Dr No" and "From Russia With Love". Indeed there are allusions to both these works: Daniel Craig reprises the "DN" scene where Ursula Andress emerges from the water, while the final location of Venice is the same as that for "FRWL". If I have reservations about "Casino Royale", it is the use of the old-fashioned opening credits sequence and a terrible opening song and indifferent incidental music (the John Barry theme at the end is too late by far) plus some confusion in the plot, but these are minor quibbles. Craig has been contracted to do two more Bond movies and I say "Bring it on!"
8/10
Solid Bond!
vengeance2017 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Seen this in Cinemas back in '06 & was the first Bond film I watched on the Big Screen as well as my first time seeing Daniel Craig & a new Bond, so this was quite the experience for me when I was 12.

The film follows Bond who after earning his 00 status must take part in a High Stakes Poker Game set up by Le Chiffre in order to take back a huge sum of his clinets' money he lost in a failed plot that Bond took down. Bond will not only discover the dark & sinister organisation he'll uncover, but to trust absolutely no one.

I found the film to be pretty good. It's bold, new, dark & flashy in every way. As I said above, this was not only my first time seeing Bond in Cinemas, but it was my first time seeing a new actor play Bond, Daniel Craig. I'd never seen the guy in anything else prior, never mind in my life up until that point, so seeing this actor play the then new Bond was refreshing.

The action in this film is pretty epic too along with the eye candy from Eva and other Bond Girls. The sinister villian of Mads was good also along with the dark tone of the film which sets the mood & gives you an idea of the dark & sinister organsiation that Bond is uncovering.

My only pet hates of the film are that it's too long & drags, at 2 hours & 14 minutes, it's overly long & it doesn't help with the dragging of scenes which do hurt the plot a little in terms of pacing.

Overall, it's a solid Bond film & you'll enjoy it.

8/10.
10/10
One of the best Bond films I've ever seen
Eweng924627 November 2006
For those of you saying terrible things about the film, about how it destroyed the Bond franchise blah blah blah. The chance are most of you probably DIDN'T see the film. This film is easily one of the best Bond films I've ever seen.

I had been skeptical about Daniel Craigs, mainly because he didn't have the Bond look, but after watching the film, I'm sold. The acting is great, the one-liners are great, the action is great, and the Bond girls are great. My blood was racing the whole way through the movie.

The only negative part of the film is probably the intro. I much prefer the old intro, the card suits just didn't cut it for me.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Bond ever
janet-5520 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Initially I had been teased into thinking that Clive Owen was up for the vacant role of Bond. He seemed perfect for the part so I was a little disappointed when I discovered it had gone to Daniel Craig. In the event Mr Craig was stunning. His acting ability won me round completely into believing him to be the best Bond ever; and let us face it great acting is not what we have come to expect of a Bond movie. And he more than looks the part, unlike some of the earlier Bonds. The opening free-running sequence amongst the cranes is genuinely terrifying, particularly for anyone with a smidgen of acrophobia. He kills brutally, he loves passionately. He exudes an air of vulnerability which makes the character so much more real. He falls in love; he fights, he runs like the wind, he gets poisoned and is forced to self-administer both emetics and defibrillators. We see him totally stripped of his clothes and dignity and whipped with a heavy duty knotted rope. We watch as he is transformed into a detached arid killing machine during the course of this very long film (2 hours 30 minutes). One hopes however that he retains some of his more human feelings that were on display for us in this Bond outing for the next instalment; and that like this film it is almost gadget free. I watched this on Sunday morning and have to say it was a great way to start the day. It is a must see for anyone who likes action films not just die-hard Bond aficionados.
10/10
Recharged
jbonnieville27 January 2013
Talk about a recharged the series!!!!! Casino Royale brings James Bond back to life, with severe density, extreme darkness, and even a strong reprisal for a franchise that had unnecessarily strayed from its origins.

All the human qualities that were lost within the former super suave and seemingly immortal 007, is now given new meaning with Daniel Craig's James Bond. He is exactly what the character is suppose to be - brooding and frightening as any true killer who is "licensed to kill"should be. James Bond finally has a deep background, a significant past, and exact reasons for why he does what he does. With Casino Royale, the franchise series seems to no longer just an excuse to give the movie going audience pointless and mindless thrilling action rushs with no reason at all. Not to worry of course because action scenes, though not as many as the older films, are nevertheless just as exhilarating. This would all not have been possible and been utterly chaotic, if not for the amazing direction and oversight from Martin Campbell. The great thing is that all the tongue and cheek humor is still so prevalent in many, many scenes and the screenplay is so very strong.

We all know it is going to be a sequel and there is no issue about it, but things have, and will continue to adapt and change for the new world order Bond. In this case, the change looks bloody good in Daniel Craig.
7/10
Great fresh shift of the Bond formula in overall
Seraphion7 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The story shows a great new and fresh take on the Bond franchise. After so many years and movies and actors, it's just right to use this movie, in a refreshment and introduction from Pierce Brosnan to Daniel Craig, to really steer the whole Bond feel to a new direction. I really like how the movie divert from the usual and repetitive focus on the brilliant villain and henchman with their uber crazy world domination plan, to a more personal focus of Bond. This is done without lessening the action quality. I enjoy the action scenes, particularly the early parkour chase sequence, which really gave me a queasy feeling when it reaches the high cranes. I like how the actors commit to the story in their acting. It's a great acting job in overall. Daniel Craig did very well in giving live to the cold and efficient Bond personality without reducing the womanizing charm. Eva Green really managed to keep the audience tethered to the whole Bond's personal story.
10/10
One of the best Bond Movies Yet!
lst_eekgads27 November 2006
When I first saw the trailers, I had my doubts about Daniel Craig's ability to carry the 007 pistol. However, he proved to be more than able to handle it. Characters had more depth & were acted beautifully. Dialog was smarter & crisper. Of course, there were the trademark 007 zingers but the dialog didn't rely on them. Also, the actors didn't depend solely on their looks & sex. They were shown in unglamorous situations w/ clothes that actually got dirty. The locales were exotic & gorgeous. The action in this movie was AMAZING! Of course, it's a Bond flick so there is the usual gorgeous women & cars that we have all come to expect. Daniel Craig did an amazing job reviving James Bond as the sexiest super spy!
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Finally, Somebody Who Rivals Connery
Crannicus_Maximus20 May 2007
It has been more than two decades since Sean Connery appeared as the suave, sophisticated super-spy that many millions have come to know and love. And, for me at least, it has been equally as long since the role has been occupied by somebody worthy of it.

That was, until now.

Casino Royale was plagued with doubt prior to release (a blonde playing Bond?!?), but that doubt was unwarranted to say the least. Daniel Craig delivers a smashing performance as a slightly darker, slightly more violent, and incredibly more entertaining Bond than we've seen in a long time. And, as others have noted, he is the closest to Fleming's Bond as has ever appeared on screen.

A modern update (the film seems to be set in 2006) of an old franchise, Casino Royale crackles with intensity from the opening black and white frames to the dazzling finish, and with new style and flare, too. The Bond Girl(s) are, for once, used more as sideshows and plot elements than eye candy. The technologies utilized are more function than flare. And, perhaps more important than anything else, Bond actually suffers loss and copes with serious injuries.

Add to this the fact that there is a marvelous supporting cast (perhaps not from Eva Green, but definitely from Mads Mikkelsen), and some simply eye-popping chase scenes (I'm thinking of the one foot chase near the opening of the film), and you have a formula for success that is simply unparalleled.

Definitely more delightful than many Bonds before, and it leaves me waiting for more from Daniel Craig! 10/10
10/10
Classic Bond
billygoonerbays-7472713 March 2021
A superb introduction for Daniel Craig . He will be missed.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond is Back!
RatedVforVinny18 January 2019
I have been so late watching the recent bonds and this is the very first time viewing Daniel Craig (as bond). After the disastrous, debacle of the Pierce Brosnan Bonds, 'Casino Royale' arrives as a breath of fresh air and possibly an instant 007 classic. Craig might not be the definitive bond but he brings enough to the table, to change the parameters of what we have come to expect. Every actor playing the role is naturally compared to the benchmark performances of Mr Connery but at long last they have entered a more up-to-date age, where the franchise is once again able to compete with the very best action movies of the day. It's all achieved by simply delving back into the past and reflecting the sentiments and feel, of the original Fleming novels. Edgy, wired and sometimes (thankfully) a bit nasty. The Swedish actor Mads Mikklesen makes for a top notch baddie.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Daniel Craig is NOT James Bond
MJShep872 January 2007
First of all, the movie did not develop like a James Bond film at all. Instead, it tried to develop along the lines of one of the Bourne movies, and by no means are James Bond and Jason Bourne the same person. Daniel Craig does not have the height of James Bond, the dark hair, or the suaveness. He is an unattractive Rambo type character running through the streets in jeans and an unbuttoned white shirt. Compare him to previous actors who have played Bond...Connery, Moore, Brosnan...they were always in suits and commanded an air of coolness. Craig is nothing more than a sloppy, buffed out, animal. His accent sucks and he has to compromise for his awful presence with pecs and a six pack (nothing former Bond characters had to do). Daniel Craig = Not Bond.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
WOW, when is the next one?
bob-rutzel18 March 2007
James Bond (Craig) goes toe-to-toe at the Poker table with banker La Chiffre ( Mikkeisen) who supports terrorists.

This is based on Ian Flemming's first novel. And, here we see a different Bond, one who is arrogant, and has an attitude, but forgive him, as he is on his first mission. He has just earned his OO License-To-Kill status and apparently likes it. We learn how he gets the Aston Martin, why he prefers married women, how he likes his Vodka Martini, how he gets his first custom-made tuxedo, and how he makes mistakes to the dismay of M (Dench), his boss.

What we don't see is Q with his gadgets from other Bond movies, no sharp one-liners Bond usually quips after some encounter with a bad guy, no hat toss onto the hat tree as Miss Moneypenny watches because there is no hat and also no Moneypenny. And, here I am not sure, but I don't think I heard the line, "Bond, James Bond" uttered by Craig. I am almost positive I didn't hear it.

This is an exciting James Bond and we hope he stays around a while (shades of George Lazenby). This one is energetic and in shape and he needs to be after the all out foot-chase in the construction yard in the beginning of the movie. The stunts were awesome in that construction yard and the way many things were toppled and fell it was amazing no one got hurt. They were so real I checked myself into a hospital just in case.

The supporting cast were all excellent and even though the La Chiffre (Mikkeison) character played it too subtle and cool, he was an enjoyable bad guy. Kind of looked like Tom Berringer too. Dench as M was perfect and Eva Green is a beautiful and sexy Bond girl.

I know I read the book years ago and do not recall that poker was the game of choice in there. It was Baccarat, which is featured in most of the Bond movies. This does not take anything away from the story, just wanted you to know.

So what can we expect from future Bond movies? Will it be Poker instead of Baccarat? Will he ask where Q is with his gadgets? Will Miss Moneypenny show up? Will he finally say, "Shaken, not stirred " as he gives his drink order? Are we going back to some evil Bond nemesis who is bent on destroying much of the world with missiles, super lasers, bombs or a change in weather patterns? I guess we will have to wait and see.

But, we should see a more structured, and mature Bond and one who knows not to break into M's house anymore.

And, aside from the Bond music not playing as often or as loud as it should have, I just have one question: when is the next one?

Violence:Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: Yes, Bond is stripped and tortured. And you thought something else? Language: No
8/10
Bond for the 21st Century.
commandercool888 July 2008
James Bond is back. Grittier than ever. 'Casino Royale' is decidedly the best 007 film since 1995's 'GoldenEye', which introduced the world to Pierce Brosnan as the slick double agent for the first time. And for a franchise that has spanned more than four decades, 'Casino Royale' returns to its roots in more than one way. Martin Campbell, who brought 'GoldenEye' to life on the big screen, returns to the helm once more to revive a slumping brand and restore it to glory.

During Pierce Brosnan's stint as James Bond, there was the almost unanimous consensus that the aging franchise seemed to finally be running its course into the sunset. Where do you go when you've done it all before? You go back to the beginning, back to where it all began. And as the curtains pull back and 'Casino Royale' welcomes us to a black-and-white intro that brings us back to Hollywood's golden age, there's no question this is the beginning of a new era for cinema's most famous assassin. There's nothing slick about it, no special hi-tech gadgets to rely on. 'Casino Royale' presents us with a raw vision that aims to get inside the psyche of the cold, calloused man.

Perhaps the biggest question of all, does Daniel Craig pull it off? An unorthodox casting choice no doubt, but one that takes no time getting used to. He may not have the cunningness of Sean Connery or suave persona of Pierce Brosnan, but let's not forget this film's goal of shedding its layers and giving us a portrayal we've never seen before. And with that, Daniel Craig does appear to be the perfect choice to shatter preconceptions and reintroduce us to a character who first appeared on the big screen in 1963. Craig fits the persona of a cool, calculated assassin with an edginess that hasn't quite been molded to perfection yet. He's good-looking with a sculpted body, and when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, Craig holds no punches.

For an action movie, 'Casino Royle' comes in at a winded two-and-a-half hours. Excessive? Maybe. But with the right stuff, which this film certainly has, it's all apart of the journey. There are numerous action extended action sequences that, technically speaking, are endlessly impressive. And from an entertainment perspective, it's probably what you pay for with films like this but don't always receive in such satisfying doses. And when he's not making daring escapes, Bond engages in the wonderful game of poker. This is perhaps the film's greatest achievement, delivering some fantastic film moments as Bond sits opposite his target Le Chiffre (played beautifully by Mads Mikkelsen) as they engage in a high-intensity game of logic and odds that oozes with tension on-screen.

'Casino Royale' accomplishes all it needed to. A stylistic and thrilling ride from start to finish that takes us from Madagascar to Montenegro to Venice. It's not perfect, it may not define the action film, but it succeeds in reinventing itself for a new millennium. It takes a grassroots approach, and Daniel Craig takes the character of James Bond and makes him his own. With enough bruises and heartbreak to last for at least one more sequel, there's no reason anymore to write off the James Bond franchise as mindless entertainment.

More reviews at rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=219276&view=public
Welcome return of Fleming's hero - Craig delivers the goods.
DVD_Connoisseur18 November 2006
In many ways, "Casino Royale" is a return to traditional Bond movies. With an air of an early Connery movie in places, this gadget-free adventure proves that Bond is most successful when freed from the horrible gimmicks of invisible cars and where an Omega watch is a time-piece and not a laser device.

Daniel Craig has, I am glad to say, buried any doubts I had about him. Physically transformed from the slight actor who strode nervously onto the stage at the Bond announcement all that time ago, Craig is a powerhouse of a star in this film. He looks every inch the part of Fleming's hero. You really believe that this man could kill with his bare hands - he has a physical presence that outdoes Connery. With this movie, Craig brings muscles back into fashion. If nothing else, his latest appearance on the silver screen should see gym membership increasing as fans embark on the painful quest for the Bond body!

While the plot of the film was convoluted, I enjoyed practically every minute of it. Even the uncredited blink-and-you'll-miss-him fleeting appearance of Richard Branson didn't spoil the proceedings. When the end-titles rolled, I was left longing for more.

The film's not perfect, though. I missed Moneypenny and Q; found the the rather low-budget title sequence disappointing (a Bond film just doesn't feel right without naked, trampolining ladies); found the mono-chrome opening rather lacklustre and the ending anti-climatic....

In a nutshell, "Casino Royale" just didn't feel like a Bond film. It lacked that bit of escapism that separates James Bond from Jason Bourne.

Despite reservations, this is a genuinely exciting introduction to the new Bond. May he work on his majesty's secret service for many years to come - just make sure there's more Bond flavouring in the ingredients for the next film!
10/10
The Franchise is Back
nycritic25 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CASINO ROYALE does what no Bond movie has ever done before and it's a simple thing: it goes back to the basics and details the creation of Bond per se with its fits and starts as Bond has to fight against his own worst enemy -- his own ego -- before he can successfully complete any mission involving spies, counterspies, terrorists, and the like. A fantastic opening montage that intercuts the present, filmed in the style of noir, with a flashback killing, filmed in gritty, scratchy images, and Bond has pocketed two killings in less time than you can catch your breath, earning his double agent status. Then he's off on a chase through the African landscape as he tries to intercept a runner carrying a terrorist device linked to a code in a cell phone ("ellipsis") that ends rather badly and, due to the fact that now we're in the age of the Net, immediately disseminated, a thing that displeases M (Judi Dench) who knows Bond isn't ready to assume his role -- he's too much of a hothead. However, there is still the issue of his pending mission, and this takes Bond into the (customary) exotic locales and closer to the man he is supposed to beat in an all-stakes card game -- Le Chiffre. In fact, nearly the entire movie is spent at Casino Royale and is virtually devoid of exaggerated action. All of the tension relies in the fact that Le Chiffre and Bond are pitted against each other and within them there are other double agents and possible betrayers who are out for their own material gain and personal reasons.

So other than the African chase scene and one involving Bond trying to stop a suicide bomber from hitting a plane -- itself, again, keeping up with the times -- CASINO ROYALE is actually quite somber with snippets here and there of humor, and a third act that goes somewhere completely different and shows Bond in a more human light -- and explains his later treatment of the women he's crossed. There is a dry element to the scenes of violence, however, that CASINO ROYALE presents -- it's less cartoonish, for one, which is a good thing. It also has a lot in common with the type of violence shown in Melville's ARMY OF SHADOWS -- sparse, to the point, without relying on the swell of music and the extended scenes where the bad guy just won't die and Bond can seemingly go on forever. This Bond will kill at the drop of a hat; he's totally unpredictable, he can take quite a beating himself (in a scene where he gets tortured in a man's most vulnerable place) and make it look like he's enjoying it. Daniel Craig, with his cold yet sad blue eyes and steely, chiseled looks (and impossibly honed physique) makes him look dangerous yet compassionate at the same time, still not sure of what his role is supposed to be about. He's, quite frankly, what Bond is meant to be.

Now, there's the issue of how relevant the character is in a time when we have the plethora of terrorist events taking place all around us. I think so. The traditional Bond fought battles over nearly inhuman villains and that took 90 % of the story's credibility -- you knew you were watching "another Bond flick" and that was a big whoop, wasn't it? This time, none of the identifiable elements of "the Bond movie" are present. It's as if this is the first time Bond as an agent was introduced to us and none of the previous stories ever took place. Bond himself speaks his most well-known line at the end of the movie, which is nearly 150 minutes long. The Bond women aren't glamazons -- Eva Green, while exceedingly beautiful, is accessible: earthy but sophisticated, and Caterina Murino has the dark looks but registers little and she is out after one scene. Le Chiffre is less a monster, more a corrupt politician. This is quite a gritty movie, using CASINO ROYALE from 1967 as a template to re-configure it completely and make it into a powerhouse action-drama-romance adventure for our times, where instead of the deadly machines seen in GOLDFINGER (and the rest of them, each successive one more lurid than the previous) we have cell phones running terrorist rings and implants that allow 24 hour monitoring of Bond's whereabouts -- relevant to our times. This is, simply put, Bond for the new millennium.
8/10
Welcome back, Mr. Bond.
lewiskendell20 March 2010
What a wonderful re-start for the Bond franchise! From the opening scene to the end, this movie keeps the entertainment coming. Daniel Craig steps into the role that Pierce Brosnan left, and he does an amazing job playing the new "realistic" Bond. Eva Green is one of the hottest Bond girls ever, and the lack of gadgets is actually refreshing. Some people may be a little put off by the lack of some of Bond's more gimmicky trademarks (and I have a soft spot for some of those gimmicks, myself), but I would encourage those fans to give this a chance.

The Bond franchise had fallen behind the Bourne and Mission Impossible movies in recent years, but Casino Royale puts the super spy firmly back into the mix. It's not just a great Bond movie, it's a great movie. Modern, thrilling, and new...but still undeniably Bond.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig fits into Bond's world comfortably
Andy444411 December 2006
Alright, a new Bond film. Off to the cinema house, once again! But hey, now, here's this new guy. Everyone's worried he may not be 007 calibre. Not to mention this is a "back-to-roots" story in which Bond is a newly minted double-oh agent. No Q, no Moneypenny, according to IMDb's cast listing. What awaits us beyond yonder popcorn counter? Mediocrity? Failure even?

Not to fear, Craig fits right in! Even better, he creates new Bond lore all his own. Ever wonder where that whole vodka martini shaken-not-stirred thing came from? How Bond came to be a lover of fine cars? Where his charm and coldblooded attitude toward (most) women came from? Want a glimpse into what makes the man tick? Well, sit yourself down and give this'n here a look!

Down to tacks: Pros: -Craig is a grittier, more believable Bond. He looks like the kind of guy you hire as an assassin, and has to learn to be comfortable being suave. -Green (the lovely Vesper) is the classiest jewel to call herself a Bond girl since Diana Rigg, and for similar reasons; they both pulled off the impossible (watch if you don't know what I'm speaking of!) -M. Judi Dench continues to get better and better in this role. And when she gets angry, you are actually glad for a minute that you are NOT Bond (it passes quick, of course). -Lack of silly special effects and over-the-top explosions. There is plenty of good, rockin' action in this, mostly involving fists and foot chases. It's still a bit outlandish, but easier to suspend disbelief. -More believable bad guys. Usually we are treated with silly villains who try to take over the world with some Dr. Evil plot. This time, the villains are more believable: they want to get rich and keep a low profile, and they are ruthless. -just a good telling of a story overall. The plot is kind of complicated and forces you to pay attention, and there are little telling signs everywhere that you must remember later to get the picture. I find that enjoyable. -Awesome cars. British ones, too. No dorky yuppie-mobile Beemers here!

Cons: -length. The movie starts to drag in the second half, and about 10 or 15 minutes could've been trimmed. This keeps the movie just out of reach of a 10-star. But the ending more then makes up for it.

Some people wonder about continuity; clearly Sean Connery's films take place in the 60's and Bond is a Cold War figure, so how does that square with Bond starting anew in 2006? My only answer is that Bond films are like a comic book story. Whenever a new actor takes over, it's like a new comic book story arc. Batman started in the 1930s but now he starts in 2005, etc.

Look, folks, in case you're still wondering, films like this are why we pay to go to the movies, period. Just lots of fun.
9/10
The First Bond Film...
moviewizguy23 December 2006
This film is about James Bond's first mission to stop Le Chiffre, a corrupt banker, from winning a high-stakes poker tournament and using the prize money to pay back threatening terrorists who lost money because of Le Chiffre.

I believe this is the first film in the Bond series and it's the second Bond film I've seen so I wouldn't know what to say if it's the best or not. I'm not typically a Bond fan but my dad is, which is why I saw this in theaters.

I wasn't that excited as seeing this movie as other movies but this film is very good. I wasn't very surprised because almost everyone said it was good.

And as everyone knows, there's a new Bond, Daniel Craig. His acting plus others, including Eva Green, Mads Mikkelsen, and Judi Dench, are very good. And Daniel Craig does much better stunts than Pierce Brosnan which makes the movie more exciting.

This being the first film, the famous line wouldn't appear until the end of the film, as so as the theme song. The credit sequence in the beginning of the film is very interesting, tied to Die Another Day. This film is a tad too long, running in about 2 hours and 30 minutes.

In my opinion, Daniel Craig is a much better Bond actor than Brosnan. This film makes your heart beat fast and it's one of the best films of this year. If you're a Bond fan, then you'll certainly love this film.
6/10
Best Bond ever ? No. Best Bond since the 60' No way. Best of the two last Bonds ? Not even.
DeuxiemeEscadron21 November 2006
What doe's make a Bond movie a good movie ? Why doe's a Bond movie is good ? A Bond movie is good because it's a Bond movie! A Bond movie wouldn't be as good if it was anything else than a Bond movie. What does a Bond need to be Bond ? -A well played James Bond -A potent but never very elaborate plot -A convincing, mysterious and fearable villain -Action, action, action -Breathtaking Bond girls -More action...and chases, always new ways of chasing -Bondness

Casino Royale 2006 has the potential to be a very good Bond, but this potential wasn't correctly exploited. We had an opportunity here, to learn how 007 became 007...they had an opportunity there, to tell how 007 became 007: all was set in place for a tremendous Bond movie; for a surprising recipe with the same old great ingredients. What do we get ? Classic scenario with priorities at the wrong places. We get a look at the first James Bond 007 mission that could easily have been any other than his first. Action scenes not very entertaining, not innovative at all. Lenghts, a lot of. Flaws, 2 big enough to make you drop out of the story. Lack of imagination, lack of new facts about Bond's first days as an agent. A Bond movies says: i'll entertain you from the beginning to the end, if not with the action scenes, with the Bond girls decolletes, with Bond's quotes, with the villain's mysteriousity, with the montage, with the music.... This Bond movie says: look at me, i'm trying so hard to show i'm a Bond movie that i forgot there was place for new stuff in Bond movies.

How did James Bond became James Bond ? Casino Royale won't tell you because in this movie, Bond is already Bond and all they add to him is his 007. This movie could have used a more developed pre-007, pre-MI6 Bond story. A better original score, since this one is i believe, the worst James Bond score ever. More poker scenes; since Texas hold'em is so popular these days why not, if done correctly. More Bondness : exaggeration is the way of Bond movies; exaggeration in a Bond movie is always tolerated because it's in a Bond movie, it's part of the tradition. What this movie could have accomplished is to justify the 20 Bonds that preceded it but, sadly, this movie hardly justify itself.
10/10
This Is My Favourite Bond Film!
Casino Royale is a truly fantastic take on the classic British super-spy; and it's THE elixir James needed after the previous mistake that was Die Another Day (2002). And the FABULOUS twist to the whole 'Bond-gun-barrel-opening' sequence is important to the film's actual introduction. We see Bond shoot a guy in a bathroom as the opening credits play before us. And then the kickass song 'You Know My Name' by Chris Cornell plays to motifs heard later throughout the film. And THAT song is probably the most underrated of all the modern Bond songs. And it reflects and honors Bond's return to the big screen in 2006 perfectly. This film is visceral and believable. It's the antithesis of the Roger Moore films and the Pierce Brosnan ones. Daniel Craig is the Bond for the post-9/11 generation!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Double oh my god this is rubbish
elvis_rocks7517 November 2006
Last night, I went to see Casino Royale. I didn't expect much, although I secretly hoped to be surprised by a tough gritty thriller devoid of all the overblown tat that has blighted the James Bond films for as long as I can remember. Stripped down Bond, edgy, moody - I had read all these things and more in an array of suspiciously complementary reviews. I loved James Bond as a child (Roger Moore), but had gotten less and less excited at the thought of the next release, and more and more annoyed at the way that the franchise acted like it had a god-given right to somehow demand respect from the public for being "BOND". Well, I have to say I was surprised. Never before have I seen the blatant homo-erotic 'man on man action' subtext displayed so openly. The whole film seemed mired in it's own camp importance. The acting was as wooden as Woody Woodpecker's wooden house. The dialogue was atrocious (as for Paul Haggis' 'glitter' - I dread to think what the script was like beforehand). The plot was disjointed and unbelievable - veering awkwardly from weird melancholy scenes delivered with zero charisma to weird 'slightly amusing' scenes delivered with zero humour. It succeeded in reducing poker to the least interesting and suspenseful game on the planet, and the least said about the stock European exposition man the better. It was an hour too long, had a bad ending that sought to blunt any trace of edginess the film had accidentally stumbled across during the previous 2 1/2 hours, and the blatant product placement was shameful. The best bit was a chase scene that while not making any real sense, at least stopped anyone from talking for 5 minutes. Did I mention the racial stereotypes straight out of 1980's action movies - sweaty Africans with machetes anyone?? Woeful. Don't waste your time.
9/10
A Contender for the Best Bond Yet!
mjw230512 October 2007
Casino Royale takes the Bond Character back to his raw roots, and reflects the image of Bond that Ian Flemming had in the first place.

After all the fuss and upset over naming Daniel Craig as Brosnan's successor in the Bond hot seat, i'm happy to say that he is quite simply an inspired choice in the role.

Loaded with fast paced action from the start, we get too see James Bond evolve as the movie progresses, he has to learn many lessons in being a '00' agent the hard way; and the film is gritty and raw enough to portray it superbly.

Casino Royale is both visually impressive and excellently made, and despite still having a few far fetched moments, it feels like the bond character is reborn. Dare i say its the perfect start to Daniel Craig's reign as Bond, and he proves with just a few very well known words right at the end of the picture, that he will undoubtedly succeed.

9/10
9/10
Electrifying comeback for the man in the tux.
filmbuff2028 April 2009
After the disappointing Die Another Day, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson needed a change, and in the midst of all the newly found gritty realism in the spy movie genre, it couldn't have come at a better time. Surviving the press and internet critiques of a film not yet even finished shooting, both producers, director and their put upon lead star were spurred on to bring out the very best product they possibly could. The result is Casino Royale, a stylish, glossy, sophisticated and at times brutal Bond movie.

When reviewing a Bond movie, three things have to be taken into account. 1) It was not made to win awards, 2) It is highly likely that if you saw the last one, this one will bear more than a passing resemblance to it, and 3) If you're a die hard Bond fan, you're probably going to love or like it no matter what. It's something to do with the swell of the music, the shaking and not stirring of a vodka martini and that bloke introducing himself again. After each film began coming out cloning it's predecessor and, more recently, a spill over into 'xXx' territory (with more cheesy one liners than you can fit in the boot of an Aston Martin) it was understandable that Bond fans would start to become restless.

So when it was announced that Bond was going back to the beginning, taking a leaf from Batman Begins, naturally the Bond fans rioted, because you just can't please some people. Next, they find out that the new Bond of the noughties was going to be a short fellow with a shock of blonde hair. How outrageous. The performance, however, speaks for itself.

Going back to the source material, Bond is now what he should be; a cold, calculating, womanising bastard with a taste for anything over 40% proof and a thirst for the kill. Craig's performance is damn near perfect, giving Bourne a run for his money in the hard-arse department. Suddenly, post Brosnan, Bond is now apart of the "who would win in a fight?" game once again.

Almost every risk taken with this film works wonderfully. We first meet Bond in black and white before securing his licence to kill, in fact, while securing his licence to kill. The unconventional gunbarrel sequence that follows integrates the familiar staple into the story. Next we follow Bond on his first mission, making sloppy mistakes, annoying his boss 'M' (the always amazing Judi Dench), gambling and hooking up with married women, all the while leaving a trail of dead bodies behind him. His mission takes him to Montenegro, where Le Chiffre, a banker with terrorist affiliations, is trying to win back the money he lost in a bad stocks call by setting up a poker game at the Casino Royale. Bond is slipped in to play Le Chiffre and win the money himself, with the buy in provided by the treasury represented by the beautiful Vesper Lynd played by the alluring Eva Green.

The film very closely follows the book in it's plot beats, changing necessary details to fill in time, action set pieces and to update to 2006. Now Bond is human, he has emotion, he feels remorse, he makes mistakes, and it helps to have a main character whom you not only secretly aspire to be, but whom you can actually invest in. There's very little wrong with this film, except perhaps a slightly uninspiring climactic set piece which is more or less for the sake of it and a few snippets of corny dialogue. The poker game that dominates the mid section is nail bitingly intense, whether you play the game or not, and the dialogue benefits from a polish by Crash scribe Paul Haggis.

The music is by far David Arnold's best James Bond score, with certain measures sounding like they were taken straight from John Barry. The main theme itself, You Know My Name, resonates throughout the entire film, standing in for the Bond theme which doesn't make an appearance in it's full glory until the end. The fact that it's not jarring to be without the Bond theme in a Bond film is a testament to Arnold's achievement.

The best thing about this movie is that it's follow ups should all be in the same vein, giving an air of "I want to see what he'll do next" rather than "oh, and this where he uses the gadget we saw at the beginning..." I hope all the naysayers are feeling, to put it in the words of Rowan Atkinson, like a right bunch of nitwits.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Casino Royale emerges from it's pre-release tabloid bashing as probably the best Bond film since Connery's hairpiece started going grey. Craig is certainly one of the closest to the Fleming vision and does cool and vulnerable at the same time, while the movie itself manages to become a Bond film that can actually have some surprises in store for it's audience.
10/10
A refreshing reboot
AmyJenson19953 June 2015
Sometimes, when you decide to start all over from a blank page, it can be risky. You can lose die hard fans, who were too much used to the same machinery again and again.

But in the case of James Bond, this fresh start was more than welcomed. When each 007 movies were all about the gadgets, the nice car and girls, this new one is focusing on what should make the essence of the franchise: James Bond himself.

This James Bond is more vulnerable, he doesn't collect the dates of one night like we were used to see in the previous movies. He actually has feelings for the people he met throughout his mission and he really fell in love. He is also more perfectible: he makes mistakes and he learns some valuable lessons from it. He is more like us which make him automatically much more identifiable and appreciated by the common people. I particularly appreciate that change and I've fallen in love with Daniel Craig, who is playing Bond to perfection.

The other big change is the complete disappearance of the gadgets. No more invisible car, no more coat which deploys and surrounds its wearer when he's caught in an avalanche or x-ray lenses. It could shock some of the die hard fans but to me it's a blessing because we can see how powerful James Bond is and again it's allowing us to see his real personality because he's not hiding anymore behind the gadgets. This time when he's in trouble, he only relies on his instinct and his allies.

I give it a 10 because that's all it deserves and I seriously wish the screenwriters will keep with that direction because this is clearly a gold mine they are fallen upon.
8/10
No shortage of fights, explosions, chases, exotic locales: vintage Bond
MartianOctocretr525 November 2006
When I first saw the trailers for this movie, I thought Daniel Craig had the appearance more of a super villain for 007 to cross swords with, rather than the super spy himself. I salute Craig for changing my mind: he makes an excellent "Bond.....James Bond."

The early scenes were vintage Bond format: an opening event detached from the rest of the story that gave a quick showcase of Bond's talents, followed by his receiving a new case and weapons to blow stuff up with. His latest flame is Vesper (Eva Green), a gorgeous accountant, who has as much chemistry with 007 as any Bond girl I can recall. There are some cool chase scenes: the one at the airport is best, with the construction site a close second. Of course, the obligatory routine of both the pursued and the pursuer knocking down and scaring a zillion bewildered onlookers is present, and there's some good comic relief where it fits. With a title like this, there's bound to be a big stakes poker game as part of the action, and there is. This slows the pacing somewhat, but some unexpected thrills punch it back into high gear again. My only beef with the movie is the obvious outcome of the gambling. They could have flashed a sign "Generic high stakes cliché," and you would get the idea.

Many characters are well defined, making for some involving intrigue, as loyalties and alliances appear and vanish faster than you can say, "Shaken, not stirred." From beautiful Nassau to exotic Montenegro, this is one fun ride with 007. Fine cast, good action; this movie is recommended.
8/10
Ladies and Gentlemen, forget what you know about 007 - lets start afresh!!
vancoolguy18 November 2006
"The name's Bond, James Bond!"

Nop! We don't get to hear this familiar cliché until we reach the very last scene; welcome to the new 007 movie Casino Royale. We see a much less experienced, agile and athletic yet not the kind of Bond we have become used to in the past few years during the Pierce Brosnan era. The Bond we come to know is new in his profession, slightly naive but warm at heart (recall "How can you do like this? How can you be so cold?" - Goldeneye). He does not delve himself into some vendetta for satisfying orgasm but falls in love, wishes to quit his profession for a settled family life. Isn't this what all of us dream of? Well, Bond is no superhuman, he is just another person, just like us - that's what the movie is all about. Well, if only Bond could be like us, how could he be any different from us that made him so popular? How could he be the hero we all know? Probably fate had a similar opinion too, hence Bond is not what *he* wanted to be but is how *we* want him to be - cold and professional, relentless in completing his mission, loves to play around with all the new gadgets he gets and of course his never ending drive for satisfying his libido. Casino Royale is far away from this well known Bond's image.

I will not go at depth to give a complete writeup of the story. However, I will give a few comments though. If you are looking for a 007 movie which is fast, action packed with lots of new gadgets and steamy sex scenes, this is not the movie for you. This movie is completely different from the plot we have got used to from the past four Pierce Brosnan movies; its slower, hardly any new gadgets, no Q and hardly any sex scene. The emphasis was on the plot and on the Bond's character; a reflection into what made him into the 007 we know. However, it has some beautiful scenic beauties at some exotic locations, some remarkable action scenes without the CGI stuff, a wonderful foot chase (its indeed something I have seen after a long while). I would say, its much more down to the earth movie. We also see glimpses of Bond's well known witty remarks. And on Craig's performance I would only say that in my opinion, Brosnan was perhaps better suited as the kind of Bond we love to imagine. Craig is much more down to earth, more like the one Ian Fleming portrayed. As a whole, I would only say that as a 007 movie, you might want to watch is at least once.
9/10
Insanely Awesome
sterlin_rivera6 February 2020
Casino Royale is just.....wow. This is really insanely good. This was the first one to bring in Daniel Craig, and got things started off with him on the right foot.

The film is about James Bond (Daniel Craig) obtains a license to kill, and heads to Madagascar to confront a man, named Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Chiffre finances in terrorist organizations, and plans to raise money in a high-stakes poker game. MI6 sends Bond to play against him, and Bond, along with the beautiful Vesper (Eva Green) to supervise and finance him, shall use his greatest gambling abilities to take down Le Chiffre's organization.

The film had a really interesting story. We have seen Bond gameled in most of the previous 20 films, and how they used his gambling techniques in order to stop the bad guys was such a cool concept. The action in this one was incredible and offered some very big and exciting stunt work. The acting from everyone is awesome. Daniel Craig did a top notch job as Bond, and Eva Green was great as the Bond girl. Together, they both had wonderful chemistry.

In the end, Casino Royale is easily one of the best Bond films ever and offers a lot of spectacular entertainment.
8/10
bond is a hunk...
rivertam2617 November 2006
How hot is Daniel Craig. He is smoking hot in the latest addition to the Bond franchise. I have to admit I've never been a big fan of the Bond films and I promised myself I'd see this one only if it got great reviews but after seeing the trailer where Craig walks slow motion out of the ocean I was sold. And than along came the reviews and they were fantastic so I was siked. Casino Royale plays as a sort of prequel to the Bond films it takes place when 007 first started out. It shows his first kills and when he fought in a more amateurly violent sense and why he's usually so cold in other films especially towards women. This film fleshes out his character successfully and although I was pretty much sold on Pierce as 007 I understand now what peoples complaints were. Daniel Craig is gorgeous in a rugged way but he portrays Bond as cocky, charismatic and guarded. He displays 007 as a three dimensional character with emotions and explains why he is the way he is, why he acts the way he acts. Most of the Bond films have been nothing but dumb fun. But this is not the case with this new film it's tough, gritty and dark even a little sad. It makes it's title outlandish character human in a way that should probably be recognized come awards time but it won't be. Eva green fills out a supporting performance as the mysterious female partner and Judi Dench is sassy as ever as M and has many of the films best lines. But Craig is the real prize here as a gay man I was basically fanning myself in every scene he's more than just looks though, it's his attitude, his charm, his swagger that comes across, he's a definite man's man. Besides his look and attitude he gives a great multi layered performance he never sheds a tear but you can see him being torn apart inside. The actions of his character never seem unbelievable and the film never feels fake. It does however run a bit long in places and could've benefited from some editing. The poker scenes are a bit much and the film drags a bit in it's necessary but drawn out conclusion. But this is definitely worth a look people, the actions sequences are exhilarating, the story is twisty in all the right ways and the film is involving on a personal level and on top of all that Craig gives a great performance and his looks are to die for.
10/10
reinventing the legend..
p-krieg29 November 2006
BOND, JAMES BOND..i have heard these words a thousand times..on VHS, bought all of them, on Laserdisc and on DVD ( i can only say that the new remastered versions of the old classic motion pictures show, how to do it..no added special CGI effects..they didn't even want to remove the goofs!! great!!) and now..my first impression of the new daniel craig (hope he can read this!) was a big shock..everything's new erm..different! James Bond "Casino Royale" is completely different to the last bond movies featuring horrible CGI-trash (i will never forget this tsunami-like wave in die another day) and Pierce Brosnans three different faces..that's the limit for his acting skills! Craig shows great acting and the action scenes are absolutely breathtaking..i don't want to tell too much about the plot but only that: it's exciting to follow bond's first big mission.

it's quite rare nowadays,that there is a movie, that's so well balanced..even the poker scenes are far away to bore anyone..and it's amazing, that the movie starts with a song called "you know my name" and in the end you will get be amazed about craig's last words.. ;) martin campbell and his crew did a wonderful job, creating a movie that's nearly the perfect "secret agent" movie (byebye ethan hunt!) and i can't wait to see craig's next bond!! i will not forget the last 40 years of great bonds..but this one has opened/smashed the door for an interesting NEW future..james bond will return , that's for sure!
9/10
One More Franchise Rescued By The Reboot
bruddah_man_matt25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
With the recent success of Batman Begins and Superman Returns, Hollywood is quickly learning that the blunders it's made over the past decade or so with established franchises can in fact be remedied or buried by rebooting a series from scratch (or in the case of Superman, its last well respected installment). By placing a talented visionary in the director's chair, casting for the role as opposed to slapping a big name onto a poster, substituting the work of computers for the work of real stunt-men (minimizing CGI), and placing a greater focus on character development and story rather than mindless action, production companies are fast learning that if they get back to basics and focus on making movies over money, (or at least making movies in addition to money) the theaters will fill themselves.

Casino Royale is further proof that reboots of franchises work when done properly. This is a darker, grittier and more "real" Bond than any of us have ever seen and I flat out loved it. Sure it had it's flaws, but director Martin Cambell pulled out all the stops here and reminded us why folks often refer to Goldeneye (which he also directed) as the best of the Brosnan Bonds. From the opening parkour/free running scene, to the gritty hand to hand combat, this was Bond exactly how I've always wanted to see him on the big screen.

Anyone who's still whining about Daniel Craig being cast as Bond is either in denial or hasn't seen the film yet. In terms of getting the right guy to play 007, so he might not have looked the part at first, but he sure as hell acted the part on screen. With the studio deciding to take the 007 franchise down a more sophisticated and less campy path, Craig fits the part like a glove. Once you get a sense of where they're taking Bond you think to yourself "now I get it. Now I get why they cast him."

The film itself definitely takes a few cues from the popular Jason Bourne trilogy and you can tell someone did their homework on recent spy films. With Casino Royale the man comes first, the gadgets come second (or almost not at all in the case of this film). Die Another Day this most certainly is not. I liked how they chose not to include Q or Moneypenny (although I hope to see them both in future installments) and focus on Bond for this film as it's 007's first mission and I felt that we should be introduced to him as if we've never met the character before since this installment differed so greatly from previous installments. Keeping Judi Dench on as M however was a nice touch and she definitely added some very humorous but not overly campy comic relief. "Christ I miss the Cold War." It's clever one liners like these that made the franchise memorable as opposed to cringe inducing clichés like "I thought Christmas only came once a year" - The World is Not Enough.

As a whole this film is almost perfect, however it falls flat somewhere near the middle before it picks itself up again. Yes there are some tense moments during the poker game but damn I didn't know the game itself would comprise some 30-40 minutes of the film. I'd have much preferred if Bond made better use of his stunning Aston Martin DBS rather than rolling it some 2 minutes after he hopped in to run down Le Chiffre. Taking 5 minutes out of the poker game in exchange for 5 more minutes with the DBS wouldn't have hurt the film in my opinion. Add to that the fact that Cambell decided to develop the romance between Bond and Vesper shortly after the poker game, and it adds to the feeling of the film being a bit drawn out. Luckily we're pushed back into our seats with a stunning finale and an excellent closing that has us wanting more in the way of a Bond 22 with Craig returning as Bond.

In the end the small issue with the pacing doesn't compare to everything they've finally got right. Someone like James Bond should be able to keep you on your toes and let's just say there were a few occasions when I found myself thinking "boy I didn't see that coming." From the opening black and white scenes, to the cool implementation of Bond firing toward the gun barrel cam, the witty dialogue, the excellent action choreography and the clever plot twists that keep you guessing until the end, it all fits. Casino Royale is the anti-Die Another Day and I loved every minute of it. Daniel Craig is the new James Bond and he has proved that he is more than worthy and ready to wear the number 007. Bring on 22. 9.5/10
10/10
James Bond Makes A Gritty Return
jeremycrimsonfox4 September 2020
Casino Royale is the first film to feature Daniel Craig in the role of 007, and it reboots the series, as it has James Bond, who has just received 00 Agent status, on his first mission. After causing a international incident in Madagascar, and thwarting a bombing on a prototype airliner in Miami, MI6 enters Bond in a Texas Hold'Em tournament held by banker Le Chiffre, who is known to have done service with terrorists.

This reboot takes Bond down a more gritty direction. The beginning shows this is not the Bond that your father grew up with. No longer does he use goofy gadgets, this Bond is more realistic, with more character and dialogue. Also, the violence is toned up (so much, that two scenes had to be shortened to avoid an R rating). The actors all do a good job, and the story is interesting and gripping.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The making of a human bond
chrichtonsworld20 December 2006
The first time i heard about this remake i was a bit skeptic. Later when I found out they would place the story in the present time I could see the possibilities. But after having seen this movie, I must admit that I was disappointed at first. I understand why they had to change the Bond formula. "Die Another Day" was a fun movie but even for a Bond movie way over the top! But still A Bond movie has to contain gadgets,outrageous stunts and a lot of action! "Casino Royale" has dismissed these and gone are the typical trademarks. So what is left. A new Bond,that is more realistic than his predecessors. James Bond has to rely more on his own strength and intelligence than before. And because of this he does make mistakes. This makes him very human. That aspect does deserve praise. After some considerable thought I think it is the right course to take. It would be nice to see a realistic Bond handling matters in future. I never had doubts about Daniel Craig, I know he is a very good actor. And he is the main reason this Bond movie works! He actually saved the movie. A lesser actor couldn't have pulled of what he did. He managed to be vulnerable and human and at the same time be masculant and rough when needed. People don't seem to realize that this actually is Bond's first mission and that this movie is the prelude of the Bond we know from the previous movies. Daniel Craig makes this transformation very believable. As you can see in the end he finally has become 007. I know that for most it will take a while to get used to the new concept. But with Craig as Bond I will have no doubt that we will see more wonderful things in future.
10/10
Bond is back with a vengeance and an attitude.
montanasax24 November 2006
Daniel Craig is fantastic as the new Bond. The story is faithful to the Ian Fleming novel.

It's about time to throw off the gadgetry and enjoy the character development and the gritty attitude of a newly formed love em and leave em Bond, James Bond.

I loved the cameo of the original Austin Martin Bond Car, nice touch.

The Bond ladies were sexy, intelligent and interesting.

The dialogue between Bond and Vesper Lynd on the train was some of the best repartee ever spoken in any Bond Movie.

I believe that Ian Fleming is smiling down on the Bond franchise once again.

I hope that the next movie is not too far off.
8/10
Bond Is Back With A Whole New Bang
davidhutch00719 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
On the announcement of Daniel Craig on a rainy October day in 2005 i found myself thinking that Bond had surely just been flushed down the pan.

Yet once the film began to roll in the theater today i sat there in amazement at how wrong the critics can be including myself. The stunning opening to the film in black and white will totally take you by surprise, with no gun barrel right after the company logos to assure us this is Bond you might believe you've walked into the wrong film, perhaps maybe a new Jason Bourne film but if you think that you'd be wrong. Oh by the way the gun barrel does appear and when it does you'll either love it or hate it.

Then the main titles kick in with a super sounding Bond song by Chris Cornell which really hits home that this is a new Bond for a new generation and it makes no reservations about people in the audience taking this with them. The main titles themselves are stunning, not using the conventional topless women shaking their bodies in the shadows, but using a different configuration than us Bond fans are used to.

So here we go we're into the film and we open in Madagascar where we get a fantastic and stunning sequence to which Bond chases a bomber round a construction yard, not just a round it but in it and on top of it and running and jumping about on cranes. I must say that this is a great sequence and don't be surprised if you can't take your eyes from the screen because it really is that good.

So far so good but what about the new Bond i hear you cry, well this is certainly a Bond much more close to the novels and short stories that Fleming wrote and i certainly would say that Daniel Craig makes Bond a hard character again to compare him to any of the other Bonds you'd really have to put him next to Timothy Dalton who to this day i still believe gave such a great performance as Bond.

A villain is so important and in this film he is extremely important as he is very central to the plot, but this isn't a villain out for world domination, this is a guy who's in trouble, you see he has lost a lot of money not belonging to him and needs to get it back and so sets up a poker game at Casino Royale. Mads Mikkelsen plays this villain with a certain quality you've never seen a villain with before, they even gave the guy asthma a villain with asthma? Crazy you might say but this is a villain that feels real eve with the eye that cries blood. I loved watching the character but i don't think he gets the total amount of screen time he deserves.

Eva Green plays the Bond girl but not the one your used to. Here is a Bond girl with a little bit more sparkle a little more of everything than really any of the other Bond girls have ever had, she plays the character with much more depth and plays it to the maximum and gives a strong performance So on the whole this film is excellent and if not one of the great.

Bonds and with this as a template i think further Bond films can be exciting and as big a spectacle as ever without the use of the typical Hollywood CGI and this is why in this reviewers opinion that Bond has lasted so long and done so well with every film so no more CGI just a good story and a good old piece of action! Speaking of story this is one of the best Bond scripts thats probably going to get a shot for the screen. Paul Haggis of "Crash" fame brings his talented writing skills to those of ever fading Bond writer Neal Purvis and Robert Wade who wrote 2002's Die Another Day which is probably one of the worst Bond films to date. Here Haggis makes sure that this Bond film does not fall to the same fate offering snappy lines and the often quip we expect from Bond.

Now on many peoples minds who have read the book or know of the famous torture scene then you will not be disappointed with it in this film. Daniel Craig plays the scene with so much force and even manages to give a little joke at the same time. Mad Mikkelesen is also brilliant in this scene as the desperate man doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, in this case money. It is just the stand out scene of the film!

So what are the bad points of this film if any? Well the real problem which sounds really silly because its the main theme of the film but there are just too many minutes of film dedicated to the poker being played. As said this does sound like a really stupid complaint with the film but when watching the film or after viewing you may feel the same way.

Now with Bond himself, i really have always thought that Daniel Craig was a poor choice for Bond and there were better candidates but i'm not going to just say Craig is a poor choice by going on a rant about how his hair is blonde and he has stand out blue eyes because those are just silly little things that many people are going to pick at so if you read that as a complaint to why Craig isn't Bond scrap the review straight away.

This is a Bond film on the tops of its game…Roll on Bond 22!

******** out of **********
9/10
Brosnan couldn't have pulled this off
Dark-Knight-III26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you go to see Casino Royale expecting to see the next James Bond film, you will be disappointed. If you go to see Casino Royale to see Daniel Craig prove the critics wrong, then you'll love it. Craig looks like Bond when he first dons the tux, and his cold blue eyes mirror the grittiness of the film. The opening scene is both the worst and best of the ones we have seen over the years. The worst in that is no where near on par with the action of the heart stopping boat chase in The World is Not Enough, but the best in that it sets the tone of the film, announcing the rejection of computer generated imagery, and the idea for it to be in black and white was pure genius. Craigs acting brings a smile to our face, even managing to make us laugh during the brutal torture scene, "I've got an itch...ARRRGH....no, no, to the right! ARRRGH, YES YES!!" The discourses between Craig and Green are smart and well written, more than can be said for so many other bond girls over the past years. The theme tune is good, the Bond is certainly good, but make no mistake, this is not the same Bond you saw in 2002, in more ways than one. The CGI is not missed, but Q-Branch are. The movie lacks a decent car chase, and, something i sorely missed, Bond's sardonic humour is missing. At one point, Craig kills a man with a nail through his eye. The smarter fraction of the audience would expect Bond to remark with something along the lines of, "Hit the nail on the head" but it doesn't come. Despite these missing ingredients, Craig does indeed impress, and one cannot help smile as he orders a vodka martini, or feel a satisfaction with the words, "Bond, James Bond." Daniel Craig brings meaning to the words, Ian Fleming's 007, he is more Bond than Dalton, more Bond than Moore, Lazenby and Brosnan. I would throw cation into the winds and say that, based on his performance in this film, he is better than Connery, but thats an argument for the message boards. If the inevitable next generation of Bond Films continue along this path, it would most certainly not be a bad thing. But it would be a lie to say that i, we, will not miss the old watch with the laser beam, or a car with an ejector seat. In spite of this, Casino Royale is one of the best Bond films, and indeed, action films, you will see. The man who writes film reviews for the times knows nothing about films.
8/10
Will leave you shaken and stirred....
Angelus21 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film takes everything that has existed before and throws it out the window, starting an age for a new series of films which are much more darker and grim, portraying Bond as a killer; an assassin. Nothing more.

Bond has been given his 00 status and has been assigned his first mission to track down a money launderer and in this whirlwind he finds love, betrayal and rage. Daniel Craig delivers an amazing performance as Bond, a new Bond; no more clichés and one-liners; he is brutal and swift. The film has some amazing fight sequences and stunts especially the 'free-running', beautifully shot and executed and will have the audience staring up in disbelief, it was a little odd seeing Dame Judi Dench as Q....A whole new cast would have been much better...But you can't complain when a film this fine is created...Daniel Craig has definitely shushed all his critics and haters....

A lot of Bond lovers have still criticised this movie and said it isn't anything like the previous movies, if you think about it, all spy movies nowadays have the Bond gadgets and one-liners, its time for something new.

This is a redefinition of what Bond, really is....
9/10
The only Bond movie I actually like. Make of that what you will
uolevivittu22 November 2020
"Bonds are stupid" I thought until this movie. Cliched, formulaic, zero believability, zero human interest, zero realism. Always the megalomaniac bad guy with plans of world domination, air head Bond girls, Aston Martinis and Vodka Martinis. Stupid gadgets, chases, big ending battle, Bond gets the girl, roll credits.

Casino Roayle breaks the formula, and has the first Bond actor that actually looks like a killer (he is a hitman for the UK government, really). Like a hard and not that happy man. The character is appropriately dark, because having a job like that wouldn't make you a cheerful fellow always cracking jokes, like Pierce Brosnan portrayed. There is humour but it's more mature and subtle. The Bond girl (the second one) is not an airhead just for decoration.

I didn't like Craig's Bonds after this that much. Skyfall was okay, but far from the greatness of this one. The other two had bad scripts.
1/10
As horror film is OK, but.. i didn't found any 007..!
giovannisperanza7 January 2007
007 is dead. Mediocrity has won again. It's very difficult to be up to Roger Moore or Sean Connery, but at least try to be up to Pierce which was already a loser. This one instead is just a serial killer, a bad man, a dark soul. In past films he would be the enemy. Now he is the hero. And a comment to the writer/director: killing her love that way is not a nice thing The original 007 had some kind of humor, they were never fearing anything. Yes he was not a real world man. But this is not the realty, this is cinema, and impossible things are allowed So i rate this movie a trash movie, it deserves the lower vote, because it's deeply disappointing the audience. Maybe something is good: Killing is a bad thing, it's not a joke, so this 007 film could, despite or thank to the horror scenes, be more moral than the older. Now the audience knows what means to be a secret agent with license to kill. It's not a vacation, it's not a joke.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Bond Ever?
Turriff20 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So, I finally got around to seeing Casino Royale. It was one of those movies that I really looked forward to, and then somehow never dragged myself to a theatre to see. I have problems making dates to go to movies with people, something I feel I ought to remedy, especially after my recent viewing of 300 en salle.

Nevertheless, having finally saw, and subsequently discussed, Casino Royale, the major question seems to be "is this the best Bond ever?"

Needless to say, this is a complicated question. The simple answer is a resounding "Yes". Hands down, this Bond film makes the others look stilted and amateurish, gadget happy and trite.

The more complicated answer might still be yes, but qualified with respect to the older styles, the Proto-Bond statues of Sean Connery, and the understanding that modern technology can make a film look a whole lot better than back in the day.

A lot of the credit for the astounding quality of the new Bond must go, of course, to Daniel Craig. When first I heard the rumor that he might be the new Bond, I was worried, and I kept my fingers crossed for the other guy, rumored to be Clive Owen. I had seen his stoic and quietly powerful King Arthur, as well as the strange but well done I'll Sleep when I'm dead. After watching Layer Cake, I was less certain, and eventually threw my vote in on the Craig side. I believe I was right. Craig makes a fantastic Bond, with all of the charm required and a physicality that most closely resembles that of Connery.

I didn't really appreciate the story on any real level, but I'm not sure that matters all that much. I watched Goldfinger recently as well, and the story wasn't much to get excited about there, either (and what, exactly, was attractive about Pussy Galore?).

Casino Royale's great strength also lies in its hearkening back to a younger, less experienced Bond, who breaks more rules, an more bones. The simplicity of a prequel lends a lot of weight to the production, and moves away from the ritzy, tech-guy bonds that began with Roger Moore.

Bond fans will also appreciate Bond's drinking habits in this film, a far cry even from Brosnan's shocking Mohito in Die Another Day.

Basically, this film is a must see, a Rent It Now, and Tell Your Friends, with out any reservations.
9/10
Shaken or stirred?…Casino Royale
jaredmobarak18 November 2006
I am not a very big action movie fan. Explosions, violence, and sex don't make a good movie unless there is some semblance of a story involved. Therefore, I've never really had an interest in watching the twenty or so James Bond films. Hearing about the gadgets and the suave hit-man persona told me it wouldn't be too intellectually fulfilling, and if I didn't want to be challenged at the movies I'd see a comedy, not a film pretending to be sophisticated. My fears were made true after seeing Pierce Brosnan's last effort as the superspy, Die Another Day. With its' cloaked car, impossible set pieces, and if I remember correctly time travel? (maybe not that far-fetched, but pretty close to it) I really had no desire to delve into the back catalog. Until now that is. With Daniel Craig coming on as a Bond that bleeds, I really got caught up in the hype and needed to see if one of the most versatile actors today could not only interest me in the series, but breath life into the dying franchise. I must say he did that and more.

Craig has been brilliant for years now. Mostly in supporting roles, a nice turn as a mental patient in The Jacket and a better than necessary job in Tomb Raider, he has seen some critical acclaim as a lead with The Mother and 2004's Layer Cake, which showed he could do the spy genre. Craig brings an image to this character of a man who, although unafraid of death, is fallible and willing to make mistakes in order to learn from them. He gives Bond a human quality that was lacking in the little Bond I've seen in the past. By rebooting the franchise, complete with impossible gadgets missing, we see an intellect in what he does. There are no toys to save his life; he must rely on his instincts and judgments to help get him out of the circumstances he finds himself in. You can see the wheels turning behind his eyes and the confidence that he will be able to do what is necessary to keep his Queen and country safe from harm.

We are thrown into the action straight off as Bond receives his double-o status. This film is an evolution from reckless rookie to field experienced professional. Bond is rough around the edges throughout the course of the film, making the wrong moves, but always taking the next step to insure success. He realizes the mission and he knows the rules. Our first big action sequence sees him going into an embassy after a man who has evidence he needs. While inside, he realizes that killing someone would mean his country has to give him up as that area is basically a foreign land. The entire scene shows him do everything he can to extract his man, yet never kill anyone. Sure there are explosions and injuries, but he never takes anyone out. Something about this fact really helped me to enter the world on screen; the writers didn't take the easy way out by having him shoot all in his way, they saw the logistics of every situation and problem solved a way to get through them. I'm sure most credit should go to original novelist Ian Fleming, however, one must also applaud those involved with the film for keeping it grounded in reality—possibly Oscar winner Paul Haggis' surprise writing credit has something to do with this.

For the first hour and a half you will be on the edge of your seat. The film doesn't take place completely at the titular Casino Royale, but instead on Bond's journey on his way to the top of a criminal organization. There is character development and a process to the top. Also, every supporting character does an amazing job in keeping up appearances of realism. Mads Mikkelsen is menacing as the main villain yet not treated as a cartoon madman. He is not impervious to all but our hero; on the contrary he is doing everything he is in order to cover up a lapse in judgment he made. Also impressive is Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. She is not the kind of woman one would initially think of when compiling a list of possible Bond girls. When one would generally think of supermodel looks and skimpy clothing, like that here of Caterina Murino, Green adds a sophistication and beauty all her own. I think she is at her most gorgeous in a bathroom scene getting ready for the poker match, sans makeup. Just having a Bond girl on screen without makeup is hard to fathom, but her natural beauty shines as a result. She is also a superb actress and hopefully this role will advance her career after critical success in the great Kingdom of Heaven and underrated The Dreamers.

Much credit for the success of this film to me lies in the ability to have fantastic action scenes look believable, feel realistic, and progress an intriguing storyline. This isn't action for action's sake, but necessary sequences to show an evolution of character as Bond gets beaten but keeps coming back for more. Casino Royale was by no means a perfect film, however. The wasted role played by Isaach De Bankolé, similar to his in Miami Vice even though the man can act as evidenced in Manderlay and Ghost Dog, and the McGuffin by one of my favorites Jeffery Wright, were a bit out of place and one-dimensional. Also, the final thirty minutes or so fall into Return of the King status as the pace slows to a crawl and could have ended multiple times before finally picking up again at the conclusion. While these moments could have been tweaked at the screenplay level, they don't detract too much from an otherwise great time at the movies.
1/10
Where are those classic good movies about 007?
alexanderreznikov25 December 2008
Well, here we come. Worse than even Pierce Brosnan's James Bond. Unbelievable piece of garbage this movie is. No "Q"! For the first time since 1973("Live and Let Die" with the best Bond ever Roger Moore) "Q" is absent. And what about martini and vodka, shaken not stirred? A missing part, too. No humor! Even Brosnan's Bond knew couple of good jokes. Explosions, explosions, explosions. Just another action movie. 1 out of 10. Do not watch this movie or there will be side effects. Just remember Sean Connery's Bond, Roger Moore's Bond, Timothy Dalton's Bond. Also, watch the best episode ever been made - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" with George Lazenby. Then, you'll be able to realize that those were good Bonds.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Love it or hate it.
johanne-climaco15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CAVEAT: It really depends on what you're expecting in this new Bond flick that will determine whether you'll love the reboot of the franchise or whether you'll hate it. If You are the type who has stereotyped the Bond franchise as the over-the-top, larger-than-life action spree (as best depicted in the Roger Moore Era), or if you are one who simply wishes to witness a sense of the invincible, ultra-cool, and debonair secret agent that always saves the world and gets all the women (the ultimate fantasy as they say), chances are, you won't like this film. But if you are one who has an open mind for a more realistic and less glamorous approach, Casino Royale is definitely a satisfying treat. This is the Bond movie where 007 is sometimes flawed, a person who also makes mistakes from time-to-time. This is a 007 who is troubled and tormented deep down and hence causes him to be vulnerable. His impression of confidence, and his manifestation of a somewhat cool and callous personality towards those around him becomes more of a facade of his short-comings rather than traits that define him as the epitome of masculinity. This 007 bleeds, regrets, feels pain and even cries. In short, this 007 is a man, a person rather than a super hero. Some may find the approach too heavy for an action flick and hence be turned off. But to those who have no qualms with the characterization that is more faithful to the original Fleming novels, this new approach becomes an avenue for excellent character development and interesting story telling. Casino Royale made me sympathize on the main characters (Bond and Lynd most notably) more than any other Bond movie. One gets to see real people on screen rather than just mere fictional characters. Cinematography is also excellent since the mood of the movie is not dependent on the dialogue. Despite the fact that a large portion of the movie takes place in the casino, the movie never becomes dragging. In fact, the casino scenes are very suspenseful despite the lack of mobility and action in the part of the characters. Extreme close-ups of the character's faces/eyes, as well as shots that emphasize the nuances of character movements effectively convey what is happening on screen. one does not need to know poker to understand the events that take place. There is still humor that highlights Bond's sarcasm but it is still in the context of the realistic feel of the film. The torture sequence for instance sees Bond making humorous remarks that are funny in a dark way rather than tongue-in-cheek. All in all, Casino Royale is a gritty, down-to-earth depiction of Bond. It still remains faithful to the basic elements of 007 but not in the fantastic, outrageous and glamorous manner that audiences in the 60's demanded. It really depends on the particular viewer if that is a good thing or a bad thing. But personally, Casino Royale is the movie that brings Bond back to the mainstream culture of the 21st century rather than just appealing to the aficionado of the previous films.
9/10
Four years after the franchise hit a new low, they more than made up for it!
Beta_Gallinger10 December 2008
For a long time, the James Bond movie franchise was known for featuring lots of gadgets and sometimes other elements of fantasy. However, four years after they took it too far in 2002's "Die Another Day", Pierce Brosnan's final outing as Bond, the franchise went in a very different direction with Daniel Craig as the new Bond! With this modern day adaptation of Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, they took a more realistic approach. This has obviously disappointed some viewers who are used to the usual formula in the movies, but if you ask me, after "Die Another Day", it was probably time for a change!

When James Bond accomplishes his second killing, he earns 00 status from MI6, and becomes Agent 007. On his first mission as a 00 agent, he goes to Madagascar and pursues a bomb maker named Mollaka, leading to a chase which ends at the Nambutu Embassy! Here, Bond kills Mollaka and escapes with his cell phone, which currently has a message from Alex Dimitrios, who happens to be an associate of a banker for terrorists named Le Chiffre! Eventually, it is discovered that Le Chiffre plans to have a poker tournament at Casino Royale in Montenegro so he can pay off his debts. 007 is sent to participate in this tournament and try to defeat him, but much mayhem awaits!

This 21st official Bond film starts out with a black and white pre-title sequence (not like any of the previous ones), showing both of Bond's killings before he becomes a 00 agent! This is a memorable and exciting sequence, and I think it looks good in black and white! After the title sequence, a lot of excitement follows, including the chase in Madagascar, part of which takes place high above the ground, a truck chase, and many more. Also, the romantic scenes here are definitely better than the ones in some of the previous Bond films. Daniel Craig's portrayal of James Bond is different from the usual, as he is less suave and more of a thug. Although I haven't read any of the books, I am told that's what the character is like in them, and I would say Craig puts on an excellent performance in this film, really showing his acting skills! Being more realistic, there aren't too many gadgets in this film, and unlike many other Bond films, there isn't that much humour here (a little, but not much). However, with all the suspense (yes, I found a LOT of tension here, with the memorable action sequences and such), as well as decent romantic scenes and more depth than usual, I don't think that matters!

The only other Bond film I've rated as high as this one is "Goldfinger", but this one might be even better than that! I'm not really sure, since the two films are a tad different, it's kind of hard to compare them. Some obviously don't care much for a realistic Bond film, but realistic Bond is better than Power Ranger Bond, which is basically what we got with "Die Another Day"! This film is better than its immediate predecessor in basically every way! So, if you need lots of gadgetry, humour, special effects, and perhaps fantasy to be impressed with a Bond film, then you should skip this one, since you won't be seeing those. However, if you want to see a good, more realistic thriller, with a very good actor in the lead role, 2006's "Casino Royale" could blow you away! This is no self-parody! Mind you, I feel I should just warn you about a testicle beating scene, which apparently also happens to Bond in Ian Fleming's novel. I'm glad I knew about it before seeing the film!
10/10
The best
nmoe-8899730 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very best action movie.

I've watched a lot of action movies until now, but it was the most interesting movie.

I thought it was just an action movie, but I was very moved by the story that deepens my love.

It feels like I was able to know love thanks to a woman from a cold man. It's very great.

Thank you for letting me meet the best movie.
8/10
A Brand New Bond, definitely not just another 007 redo.
vitaleralphlouis15 March 2007
Having seen every James Bond since DR NO in 1962 (ohmygosh! 45 years ago!) Daniel Craig offers the first real challenge to Sean Connery, and might prove better than Connery when we get used to him. The acting, story and action scenes are excellent; the cinematography the best of 2006.

As many people know, Sean Connery hated James Bond. He said he likes Scotch not martinis, hates wearing a tux or other dressed up attire, and prefers making love to his own wife, not to dozens of oversexed glamor girls. When Transamerica coaxed him into Diamonds Are Forever it wasn't the $7 million, it was approaching him with the idea of using that money to create a trust fund for the education of Scot children.

This isn't the first time the Casino Royale title was used. In 1967, another studio owned the rights to that Ian Fleming title. Rather than trying to find a Sean Connery substitute, or even make a good try, they created one of the great rip-offs in movie history. It was a deadly stupid slapstick comedy, with David Niven, Woody Allen, others; playing 4 people named James Bond and creating a boring mess.

No sense making further comment on the new (really the only) CASINO ROYALE. See it. DVD's are $2.65 or less; it's worth 5 times that much.
7/10
The Name's Craig, Daniel Craig.
MPR619703017 November 2006
Unlike many of the naysayers, I was happy with the announcement that Daniel Craig had been cast as James Bond. I had seen Craig in "Layer Cake" and loved his performance, thinking that the character of "Mr. XXX" would be a good template for him to base Bond. This having been said, Craig makes an excellent Bond, down to his haircut, overall demeanor and chemistry with Vesper Lynd.

"Casino Royale" is, thankfully, a very literal adaptation of the Ian Fleming novel, the first in the franchise to take so few liberties. Having read the book makes the film slightly monotonous—readers will know exactly how the plot turns out—so seeing Craig in an original Bond storyline should be an excellent treat. Perhaps the films greatest, and thus far unspoken, performance belongs to Eva Green as Vesper. Green captures her character better than any male performer has captured Bond—and that's saying something since Craig and Timothy Dalton were very close to the "literary Bond." As such, Green is very much Craig's equal, a powerful leading female better than all of Bond's "strong female characters" (read: Jinx) that have appeared in the past.

Overall, "Royale" marks an exciting new direction for the series. It's a long way off, but Bond 22 promises to be something special.
7/10
A return to high form
adamscastlevania25 September 2014
(69%) This really is Bond going back to basics. The stupid sci-fi gadgets, the over-the-top and all too apparent CGI riddled action set-pieces, comedy side characters and strait from a children's cartoon bad guys of "Die another day" and many like it are all absent. And from the beginning this takes itself very seriously, although maybe a bit too seriously, but I guess the main aim was to remove itself from the last couple of Brosnan movies as much as possible and start over again. There's certainly romantic plot elements lifted from "The spy who loved me" and "On her majesty's secret service", which is a fine asset to have. And Eva Green is a perfect inclusion to the Bond universe, while the action is hard hitting and has real weight behind it as Bond gets badly hurt more in this than any other entry. If this just had a touch of humour, which is an important element to any Bond flick, then this would be one of my favourites, but it's still very good.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Still Bond but not brilliant
crimebusterofthesea7 January 2007
From the opening scene you know this is a different Bond film to one you've ever seen.The filming is entertaining,with a very good pace.It does however force the point you feel of how different it is and runs for about 20 minutes too long.

As with all Bond films the plot is not of the utmost importance...but here it is anyway.Bond has just become 007 and must now compete in a high-stakes poker tournament against Le Chiffre.There are of course many gripping tosses and turns in-between to keep us entertained.

The acting in this film cannot be faulted.Mads Mikkelsen makes a stand-out turn as Le Chiffre,Craig makes the character of Bond his own(not particularly easy) and Judi Dench makes acting look easy as M.The scenes where we have Bond and love interest Vesper Lynd(Eva Green) in one on one situations did on occasion made me cringe.Not so much the fault of the actors but the script.This is what took the film down a notch particularly coming up to the finale.

The main success of the film is Martin Campbell's direction.As with Goldeneye he re-invents Bond and leaves us with a good film.Without him this film would not be anywhere near as good as it is.

Overall not as amazing as some people claim it to be but still well worth seeing.When the main talking point of the film is Bond getting his balls whacked you should know it's not going to be a classic...
5/10
Good for Bond
vikingvampireparrot22 February 2007
I decided to go and watch this film even though I generally hate Bond as all my friends told me I would enjoy it. Hmmm, it was OK. As a Bond film it was very good, certainly the best I've seen but as simply a film it was just OK.

Casino Royale tells of Bond's first assignment, tracking down villain Le Chiffre via a high stakes poker game. Craig displays a very rebellious and disruptive Bond who clashes with his superiors considerably. Of course there is also the ever-present love interest along the way (an accountant this time, yay for us!).

Daniel Craig was adequate, not being a Bond fan I don't have much of an opinion on whether he is 'right' to play Bond but he seemed at lot less cheesy than the others I have seen. The highlight of the film was Eva Green, who is excellent in everything she is in - those eyes are amazing! And of course Judi Dench was as engaging as always! I found the music very overpowering, it was very 'Bond' and I feel it detracts from the story slightly, too overblown.

The chase scene at the start is probably the most impressive part of the film, even if it does get slightly ridiculous in places. One thing it suffers from is feeling the need to treat the viewer like an idiot, spelling things out too much (like how much money's in the pot) rather than encouraging people to think about it for themselves (lazy people's cinema!).

If you like Bond and are open-minded you should definitely go and see this. If you are a die hard Bond fan who loves the cheesiness you may want to give it a miss. For the non-Bond fans it is a perfectly watchable film but nothing amazing - I didn't get bored but I doubt I'll watch it again.
8/10
007 gets a fresh start
sadelite20 November 2006
Casino Royale is the beginning of 007's life as a secret agent under the majesty's secret service with a license to kill.This movie is all about bond's transition into the suave and sexy spy who kills without remorse.With his newly appointed double O status Bond must learn to control his ego.He endures heartbreak and learns to cope with betrayal.

Daniel Craig does a hell of a job in recreating a character made iconic by Sean Connery.Craig brings James Bond back to being a mortal with a vulnerability to love and an impetuous streak.Craig goes through the transition along with bond and by the end the two become one.Craig creates his own image of 007 and it is convincing.

This is not the best bond movie but it is surely a fresh start.Daniel Craig gives 007 a new identity . Casino Royale moves at a fast pace and more than compensates for the lack of cool gadgets(which might resurface in the next one).
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Old School Bond, New Life
jon.h.ochiai18 November 2006
"You don't trust anyone… So you learned your lesson." Judi Dench as M says this to Daniel Craig's James Bond. This is a harsh and life altering lesson for newly licensed to kill Agent 007 in Director Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale". "Casino Royale" distinguishes itself as the debut of Daniel Craig as James Bond, and a reinvention of the Bond franchise. On the second count, the paradox is that this new Bond is very old school. "Casino Royale" was the first of Ian Flemming's Bond novels. This adaptation by screenwriters Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis provides a glimpse of the man before he would become suave Agent 007. This time around we actually get a feel for James Bond as a man, not just a caricature. Perhaps Paul Haggis's contribution is a compelling story of love and betrayal. In the first scene of "Casino Royale" Bond attains his "00" status with his first two kills. One is a bloody brawl in the restroom. The other is a clean kill shot. Bond is a cold dispassionate killer. That's what he does. Back to the first count: Daniel Craig is awesome. Craig is perhaps the most physical Bond ever, including a young Sean Connery, and he nails the dangerous bad boy persona unlike any predecessor. Craig punctuates the action as Bond, given the opening kills and the breathtaking high altitude fight scene on the girders of a construction sight. All the fight scenes are devastating with a martial arts and street-fighting edge. Old school.

Daniel Craig is the first blond Bond, younger, and shorter than previous Bonds (at just under 6 foot). That being said, he may be the best Bond yet. Arguably the "best" Bond, Sean Connery, still played Bond with an air of self amusement, knowing that his character was never in any true danger. Craig provides a dangerous powerful presence. He is a rugged man, a great athlete with a ripped physique. Props to Craig, not since the young Connery has Bond looked good without a shirt. Craig plays Bond as a real guy. As the evolving super spy, he is rough, reckless, and sullen. Craig also instills in Bond vulnerability, and self awareness that he is a killer albeit for Her Majesty's Secret Service. So when he falls for the beautiful and beguiling Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), it is a combination of swallowed ego and surrender. Bond (Craig) tells Vesper (Green), "I have no armor left." This is not a less manly Bond, rather a more human Bond.

"Casino Royale" has been updated from the original Flemming Cold War novel to the present day threat of global terrorist cells. International investment banker LeChiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) has financed terrorists around the world since 9/11, and has become very wealthy and powerful. Following a botched operation tracking down a terrorist in Madagascar, Bond is ordered on hiatus by M (Judi Dench). M knows her young charge will not give up the trail. Bond goes to the Bahamas, then eventually to Montenegro for a $150 million poker game with LeChiffre. The plan is for Bond to beat LeChiffre; thus, exposing him to his nefarious investors. Enter British Treasury official Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) with Bond's $10 million stake. At first Vesper is unimpressed with the newly anointed "00". However, that eventually changes.

There are perhaps two weaknesses that keep "Casino Royale" from being a stunning movie. First, LeChiffre, who actually cries bloody tears, is not a great threatening villain. Granted Craig is a powerful force. However, Mikkelsen comes off as more an effeminate freak with a cruel sadistic edge as evidenced by the horrific torture scene near the end. "Casino Royale" at 2 hours and 24 minutes, much like this comment, runs too long. There are a lot of great action scenes including an electrifying airport sequence, but too much time is spent on the poker game. One of the surprising elements that work is the deepened relationship between M and Bond. M is ruthless in coaching her young charge, acknowledging his destiny of greatness. Dench breaths a refreshing motherliness and compassion in M-- she knows that for Bond to become great he must discard part of his own humanity. Here Campbell, writers Purvis, Wade, and Haggis are compelling.

The love story in the context of Bond's evolution is a surprising twist. Eva Green's bravado and lilt spirit make her striking as Vesper Lynd. The performances are solid. Judi Dench is great this time around providing added dimension to M, Director of MI6. Mads Mikkelsen does the best he can with the eccentric evil LeChiffre. Daniel Craig is powerful. His performance enlightens us of the character, and evolves the franchise. Craig's Bond fears no man, though he can forfeit his heart to a woman. A different kind of Bond? Perhaps. This is definitely a Bond worth following.
10/10
This is the real stuff
prinks23 November 2006
Wow Wow Wow... this has to be the best Bond film ever made. The chases, the action, the lack of silly gizmo's and the inclusion of events which are close to real is what makes this film a must watch.

Initially I was a bit suspect about both the actor and the film - but both exceeded expectations. Craig's body is what Michelangelo would have given his life for to sculpt and his screen presence is simply fabulous. Lean, Mean and Witty - he is GOOD. Eva Green is very clever and all the dialogues in this movie are charming.

Locations are beautiful (expected), action is completely raw - there is an honesty about James Bond which is unimaginable. 'M' is her usual self, crisp, confidant and always curt. But Daniel Craig is by far the real find - I look forward to him being Bond in all future flicks.

Watch it, and do not miss the first part..
8/10
The name is Blunt, James Blunt: The birth of James Bond
stamper28 November 2006
There is a lot that can be said about Daniel Cgraig and I must admit that I've said a couple of negative things about him as well. I think he looks more like a prizefighter than the stylish, sophisticated lady-killer that James Bond is supposed to be. Also he is blonde and what's with the haircut anyway.

Leaving all my prejudices behind, I decided to step into the theater anyway las Sunday with a couple of my best friends. In the end none of us were disappointed, including the two women accompanying us. THe thought that was going through my brain as I left the theater was: finally another good Bond film after 11 years of draught! Now do not get me wrong, I liked Brosnan as Bond, but Tomorrow Never Dies and Die another Day were simply effect laden Bond vehicles that tried to top every other movie by exploding as much stuff as possible. The World is not Enough came close enough to being a good Bond, but a crappy male villain and Denise Richards spoiled it all. What a waste of Sophie Marceau was that! Luckily Bond producers remembered a man named Campbell. Someone who had done Bond before and had used a 'new kid' before. And I must admit, that as Campbell did with Goldeneye, he pulled off Casino Royale. The funny thing is, that almost all of the criticism I mentioned earlier add to making the film great. Since this is not just another Bond film; This is the birth of Bond and that is what makes it great. After seeing this film, you won't take for granted who Bond is, you'll understand him. You'll know why he drinks what he drinks. You'll understand that he is not someone who uses women just for pleasure, but that deep within there lies a secret. Because of these things the film does not feel like a real Bond film and some might see that as a bad thing. But because of this film, the character also get's so much more depth I can only see it as a good thing.

Apart from that there is enough action and sensuality to make the film interesting, so I can recommend it even if you're not a Bondiac. But beware if you've seen other Bond films, because this one is more brutal than the others and much more gritty when it comes to scenes of violence and death! Well done Craig, Campbell & Co.

8 out of 10
9/10
Best Bond since Goldfinger
peterg28066 December 2006
Put it quite simply, this is the second best Bond film of all time. Only Goldfinger is better - and it would have to be a pretty perfect film to dethrone the Sean Connery classic. But it must be said that Casino Royale is a masterpiece in its own right. It gives the franchise a real kick up the backside, taking it from the post-cold war era into the 21st century. To many people it may not seem like a classic James Bond film with all the gadgets and far-fetched plots, but that format was getting a bit old and dated - 007 desperately needed a new look. And Daniel Craig certainly is a new look. He may be the polar opposite to the usual clean-cut, dark haired, slightly built 007, but whoever gave him the role was a genius. Craig is a muscular, blond, gruff Bond, and it works extremely well! The other main cast members are also excellent. Eva Green is one of the best Bond girls of recent times, while Mads Mikkelsen gives a superb performance as Le Chiffre, the bad guy (but not the typical psychotic, trying to take over or destroy the world). Many people criticised the producers for not having Q or Moneypenny in the film, and to be truthful, an appearance at least by Q would have been nice, but the plot didn't really have a need for him. Overall, some Bond enthusiasts may not like the gritty storyline, but Casino Royale reinvigorates a flagging franchise with a brilliant new look and a brilliant new 007.
10/10
The True James Bond has Finally Arrived
cm_samuels15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unfortunately I must report that immediately upon viewing the new 00-7 movie poster I *knew* what must be in store for an audience, but failed to write about it in advance. Hopefully Casino Royale is only the first installment, in what is a recasting of old & familiar roles.

The old set of actors & actresses in all the old Bond movies never lacked for talent. The problem in my estimation, is that the older scripts never matched the innate proclivities of the cast members involved. That in addition to goofy gadgets & stunts had me avoiding James Bond movies for years. Such is a waste, as Englands' MI-6 with attempts to thwart international villainy is compelling theater.

The new cast of villains, heroes & neutrals is an exactitude. The behind-the-scenes folks in the casting departments have worked a miracle, allowing new talent to surpass inherent pitfalls in an often combative & seniority based industry.

The script for the new Casino Royal 00-7 movie is a masterpiece.

It possesses a level of exactitude if not total realism, such as found in Borne Identity or Tears of the Sun. Its few departures from realistic effects are performed for expediency due to limited time, in a fast paced thinkers' movie. In no few instances, Casino Royale spends the time necessary to demonstrate proper realism.

I presume that intelligence operators deploy in teams rather than as individual personalities, and often rely on agents or cutouts rather than direct action. The setup in Casino Royal allows for the suspension of disbelief in that regard. It is a distinct pleasure to go-with-it, and witness the movie plot unfold.

It is my hope that further installments of the new James Bond reasoning will include more of the supporting elements. A close nit mixture of administrators (01 Div.), assassins (00 Div.), confiscators (03 Div.) & investigators (02 Div.) is called for during such a display of direct action.

***** Reading below this line will expose a reader to spoilers! *****

There are 2 errors.

When 00-7s' heart is beginning to stop due to poison, it is an impossibility to fibrillate his heart *before* it actually stops beating. To shock a beating heart stops it! Therefore his heart must already be stopped for a defibrillator to be effective. A stopped heart obviously renders a person unconscious, and therefore incapable of actuating any type of life saving device.

The defibrillator would therefore require not only a manual trigger, but a remote or automatic activation device that *would* have been totally in plot. 00-7 was connected by secure cellular network to a MD in a MI-6 01 operations center. Bond was in the process of transmitting blood sample data in the passenger seat of his automobile as he was going unconscious.

Vesper Lynd arriving in the nick of time is just fine by the plot. She would have been instructed to arrive at the automobile by alert over cellular network. She utilizes the manual trigger, thus saving 00-7s life. An automatic trigger would detect a stop in a heart and automatically fire. A remote device would allow a MD at a MI-6 operations center to trigger a fire. Either way Vesper must connect the last lead.

The second mistake is in the violent encounter in the sinking building. Bond yanks out an insulated electrical main and jams the live end into the chest of an assailant. The problem is that he is holding on to his assailant with his other arm and would therefore be electrocuted.

Just perhaps the circuit was *just* enough to down an assailant, but not enough to electrocute 00-7. Bond may wear special insulated shoes as a matter of habit, though he was also probably in contact with a wall and wet enough to conduct. This mistake is therefore, marginal.

All other mistakes are in plot, or may be explained away as in character.
7/10
Different,yet still enjoyable.
SmileysWorld26 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Forget the familiarities.What we have here is an interesting blend of old and new.Casino Royale was Ian Fleming's very first James Bond novel,yet had never been made into a movie.Not a serious one anyway.The setting is modern day,yet the story goes way back to James Bond's earliest days as a 00.If you are going to begin anew with the series,it would be smart to have a new face in place.Daniel Craig is that new face.While Craig is somewhat lacking the charm of his predecessors,he brings a fresh new perspective to the role.The action is much more raw,gritty,and violent,yet it is still enjoyable.Don't be looking around for Moneypenny and Q,their not around,which may disappoint long time fans of the series.In my opinion,our old friend has a fresh new look.Traditionalists may not like the idea,but if they give it a chance,they may just be pleasantly surprised.
9/10
Made a believer out of me
monimm1819 November 2006
After seeing Daniel Craig in other films I figured he has enough talent to pull a very credible and cool Bond, but I didn't expect this type of film. So far, most of the Bond films focused on the superficial: outlandish plots and gadgets, and objectifying women (some border lining the misogynous), at the film's expense of having any character depth, or a meaningful story. OK, that isn't necessarily a problem, since none of the Bond the films ever claimed to be more than what they were, so if you didn't like the genre you knew to avoid it. Anyway, the 2006 "Casino Royale" seems to have turned around the fate of a character and a franchise that were on their way to becoming irrelevant due to increasingly anachronistic characters and outlandish story lines, and too many clichés. It's not just a reboot of the series, it's a total transfusion that completely revives the Bond concept of the series. It's smart, gritty, with a sharper and more profound main character than any other Bond film I've seen. In my opinion, this film, although not perfect, is the best Bond film made to date. It has what most Bond films seemed to lack: class, depth and a touch of subtlety, thanks to a less shallow screenplay, good direction, and Daniel Craig's skills to depict a very believable character, not just with talent, but a smoking physique too, and whoa! finally, a Bond actor fit enough to do a lot of his stunts, some of which are quite spectacular. For once we see a Bond film where the main male character is, among other things, the eye candy, and the main female character, although beautiful, charms us with class instead of mindlessly sexed up skin. In my opinion, Daniel Craig is the next Bond, maybe the best one yet, and his presence and involvement raised the level of the film. I hope we get to see him as 007 in many more films of this caliber.

This film did something no Bond film ever did so far: earned my respect for the character and the franchise. It's very entertaining, yet intelligent enough to make us feel it values the viewers' intellect and not just their pockets.
10/10
A unique Bond film reintroducing the series
23skidoo-415 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sometimes I feel like I'm in the minority in that I pretty much consistently enjoyed all the Bond films made between 1962 and 2002 ( Except for A View to a Kill which I hated). I felt the recent Bonds of Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were great films, and Die Another Day was the best Bond film in years (despite an awful performance by Halle Berry). But some people felt that things like Bond's invisible car in DAD were the last straw and they wanted something different. And when Brosnan was effectively fired as Bond, I personally felt the Bond franchise was going to die. Especially when we started to hear rumors of inappropriate actors being considered for the part -- some as young as 23-24.

Eventually it was decided to make the 21st official Bond film into not only an adaptation of a Fleming novel (the first full novel to be adapted since Moonraker back in 1979) but a reboot of the series.

I've been on pins and needles about this for close to 3 years now. Reboots and reimaginings are terribly hit and miss. Sometimes they work well. Sometimes they are disasters. And sometimes they work really well for many people and become very popular, but for others the product loses much of what made it appealing (case in point for me being the reimagined Battlestar Galactica which doesn't do much for me - I prefer the original series).

Fortunately, and in my opinion against all odds, EON Productions has delivered a "reboot"/"reimagined" Bond that works on virtually every level. Although it has been updated for the (sorry for the cliché) "Post-9/11 world", it is still recognizably a Bond film with over-the-top action set pieces, colorful villains, multiple gorgeous Bond girls, and even gadgets.

Yes, you read that right. Despite the much-ballyhooed decision to drop Q from this film, there are still gadgets a-plenty. Granted many of them are of the type you can probably buy at Circuit City (though I don't know of many people driving around with portable defibrillators in their glove compartments) -- but gadgets are gadgets. (There was no need to omit Miss Moneypenny from the film, though -- she's in the original Casino Royale novel.)

Daniel Craig gives possibly the best performance of any Bond actor. Yes, I know it's considered a sin to rank anyone higher than the exalted Sean Connery in the role. But Daniel Craig, I think, manages the trick. And this is just on his first outing. Imagine how he'll play the role once he grows into it. Although I personally would have chosen Clive Owen for the part - the man was born to play Bond, I swear -- I think Daniel Craig was an inspired and unexpected choice. Just the sort of shake-up the series needed (the last actor chosen to play Bond who was not some sort of heir presumptive was George Lazenby; granted, in his case, the effectiveness of the choice remains a matter of debate nearly 40 years later).

Eva Green, meanwhile, has set a new gold standard for Bond girls, and in fact becomes the first such character who one would wish would appear in a sequel. Sadly, this is not to be.

I have the utmost respect for the scriptwriters on this film. (Who, it must be pointed out, are the SAME people who wrote the much-maligned Die Another Day). They have managed to write a film that actually follows the basic plot of Ian Fleming's novel quite closely (of course the film updates a lot of things and does add a number of new story lines such as Bond's pursuit of the two terrorist bombers in Africa and Miami). And by closely, I mean they also took the brave step of including the two most startling and important elements from Fleming's novel.

One of these is the infamous torture sequence, which is presented almost exactly as it is depicted in the novel. Audience members gasped when this scene appeared.

The second mirrors the end of the book, although in suitable more cinematic fashion. I won't go into details and spoil it here, but it is extremely well handled.

After two previous false starts - the 1954 TV adaptation and the 1967 spoof -- filmmakers have finally given us an adaptation of Casino Royale worthy of Ian Fleming. And in doing so, they might well have produced the best Bond film of all time.
Casino Royale - Cash in Your Chips and Leave
mntbikeguy29 December 2006
The most promise. The least delivered.

With an outstanding cast, great locations and best Bond book of them all, Casino Royal had me in anticipation of the best Bond in years. It started strong, with a great title squence and real action, far better than the Brosnan computer game action squences. The card game has suspense and thrills. For a while I thought I was there. But one technical flaw after another (every car in the movie has standard multiple airbags, but not one deploys as each car is involved in a collision, Virgin Airways does not operate a hub in Miami as the movie suggests), continuity mistakes (M does not report to the Prime Minister, her home is not a secret to 00 agents, would an airport continue to allow flights to take off and depart evacuating the airport during a gun battle?)and finally, the convoluted end game, left me disappointed.

The talents of Giancarlo Giannini (Mathis) and Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter) are wasted. Leiter simply disappears from the movie just as his role becomes pivitol. Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre) was brilliant and is another one in the win box for European Bond villains. Judi Dench (M) gives another outstanding performance. I lept for joy when the Aston Martin DBS fired up for a car race, but was left asking for my money back at the racetrack.

Daniel Craig is a good James Bond. But he does not make us laugh the way Connery and Moore did. And while he looks far more attractive in a bathing suit than Bond has looked in years, he cannot hold a candle to Connery on the beach in Dr. No.

Casino Royale has its moments. But in a high stakes game, you could only check so many times. In the end, throw in your cards, cash in your chips and count your losses.
9/10
You Won't Mind Trying This Kind Of "BOND-age"...
cchase27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My thoughts on the recent 'reboot' of the 007 franchise...

I have been following the fascinating career of Daniel Craig for some time now; from his brief appearance as a male accessory for Angelina Jolie's Lara Croft, to the more recent LAYER CAKE, which even contains a scene that seemed to be an impromptu screen test for the Bond role.

Knowing what Craig's capacities were prior to his selection for CASINO ROYALE, I was looking forward to seeing what he would do with this iconic role, unlike the naysayers and knit-picking traditionalists who decried every aspect of his selection, from Craig's hair-coloring and height to the size of his ears and head (???). Now having seen the resulting product, I hope this will shut the lot of them up for good, (though I know that wish is impossible to have granted.)

So what we have here is a Bond as rough-hewn, hard and nearly as blank as a block of granite. He's not even near as finished as the super-spy we recognize him from past exploits, but awaiting the physical and emotional experiences that will sculpt and mold his future persona as perfectly as the hard body that Craig obviously spent a lot of time working on prior to snagging the part.

One of his 'sculptors', to his good fortune (and ours) is his Service boss, 'M', played here again by Dame Judi Dench. A lot has been made of their relationship in CASINO, with 'M' scolding and bringing him to heel as if he were a naughty schoolboy who just happened to have a license to kill and she was the stern headmistress. It's pretty obvious that the complainants are not paying attention. It's a new day, a new Bond and a new beginning, so for her to address him as if she'd known him for years would be completely anachronistic to the entire scenario.

The stage is set in the pulse-pounding black-and-white opening, when Bond makes the two kills required to attain his 'OO' status. He's young to the game, cocky and impetuous, but definitely not 'green'. He's a budding virtuoso of violence...a death-dealer-in-training who still doesn't recognize how dangerous it is to enjoy your work a little too much. The days when he delivers the 'coup de grace' to an unlucky assailant with a quick quip and a quaff of a perfectly shaken martini have not yet arrived. And it's the events that unfold here that will set him on the path.

The Purvis/Wade script (with an able assist from Paul Haggis) doesn't skimp on the action sequences during his development, however. The scenes where he tracks down terrorist quarry in Uganda are as heart-stopping as anything that's been done before, and it's a testament to his conditioning, quick wits and fortitude that Bond can even keep up with the "parkour"-prone criminal Mollaka (Sebastien Foucan).

Where CASINO excels, however, is showing the duality that not surprisingly existed in Bond's personality at the very beginning of his exploits. Even as he romances the wife of one of the main villain's flunkies because he considers 'dating' married women to be less complicated, his capacity for vulnerability and compassion are revealed as he develops a doomed romance with the ravishing Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a government operative sent to bankroll James in a high-stakes poker bout in Montenegro, where the villain of the piece, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) is trying to raise money for terrorist-bound capital.

Although she's also there to keep an eye on the unpredictable agent, and she is very much his intellectual and sexual equal, keeping James reigned in is a bigger job that Vesper expected to handle. Especially when romantic sparks begin to fly, and the fans are flamed further - as they are in a pivotal scene in a shower after a particularly brutal fight sequence, when James consoles his traumatized chaperone, who has never been exposed to the baser aspects of her chosen profession.

This radical shift from rapscallion to romantic has not been explored since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, and Craig handles it beautifully. He has no problem making his infatuation believable, or the inevitable heartbreak when the affair takes a classically tragic turn (as must any romantically-tinged relationship Bond has.)

Fortunately he's backed by a cast that mostly rises to his level. Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is creepily charismatic without being ridiculously megalomaniacal, in the tradition of most Bond baddies, (mercilessly spoofed by Mike Myers in the AUSTIN POWERS films), and only goes just looney enough in the proper setting...during a sadomasochistic torture sequence lifted faithfully from the original novel.

Renowned Italian actor Giancarlo Giannini is perfectly placed in his role as Bond's oily contact at the Montenegro casino where much of the action takes place, and Jeffrey Wright makes a brief but very meaningful appearance as Bond's friend at the CIA, Felix Leiter.

Director Martin Campbell hasn't been part of the franchise since GOLDENEYE, but with the handsome job he does here mounting the rebirth of Fleming's iconic character, here's hoping he'll be back to helm subsequent entries into the "new" series.

Though the running time could've been trimmed back a bit (perhaps during the poker sequences), this is one Bond picture that definitely soars, possibly over most of the ones before it.

Welcome back, James. We've missed you terribly.
7/10
The name is Daniel....Daniel Craig...bitch!
dark_lunar_wolf15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the very first Bond I've ever seen in my life. Weird right? So what made me want to start watching now? I saw the Casino Royale trailer and it caught my interest. Craig looked like a Bond who could kick major ass, the action looked good and the women looked good. What more could a guy ask for in a movie? Anyway tonight I got to see Casino Royale. And let me say I was very impressed. The action in some scenes was outstanding. Espcailly within the first 40mins. The feeling I got from this movie was Bond was being approached at a more realistic and gritter way. There were no super gadgets just hard hitting blows. Craig plays the character really cold. He is unstable and is driven by ego. As the movie progressed he became more and more wiser. You can tell in some scenes Bond is paining on the inside. For the people who dislikes Craig as Bond must be crazy!!! Craig does an amazing job and shows all kinds sides to Bond. We see the egotistical, cold side, the funny witty side and Bonds deserve to lead a normal life.

There's not too much to complain about. I felt the movie could have been way shorter, sometimes it felt some scenes were dragging out such as Vesper and Bonds romantic scenes. The last 20mins I was left a bit confused, I also felt the ending fell flat for me. A lot of questions are unanswered for now.

Overall and great introduction for me into the Bond franchise. I hope Craig keeps playing Bond and we see a great follow up to Casino Royale. I give Casino Royale 7/10
8/10
Financial terrorist activities in danger! a new "00" agent has been assigned.
Juan_from_Bogota5 March 2007
This great movie is about the beginning of James Bond as an 00 agent, he as a new 007 agent is assigned to a very dangerous mission; to find the brain of the financial of terrorist activities in the world. The new Bond (Daniel Craig) follow smartly the clues until he find Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) the main responsible of big terrorism groups financial activities; he challenges Le Chiffre on a game held in a Casino, where Le Chiffre has to win or he would broke and be at mercy of the worst and more evil rulers of the worst mafias!

In this great movie, we can see a James Bond in the very moment that he is promoted as a "00" agent, and obtain of course his license to kill. The Financial of terrorist activities are in real danger when this agent is assigned to the mission, Bond is not only willing to give you the best action and stylish scenes, but also is ready to receive a lot of damage and to show a courage of warrior when facing these organizations. You can enjoy watching and almost feeling some beautiful places of the world: Bahamas, Venice, and stylish and glamorous action scenes,the real and deep Bond essence, and of course, beautiful women and the best hotels, clubs, cars, technology and casinos in where Bond appears.

You can see a Bond more close to reality, more human in the action scenes and his blood is part of almost every part of the movie, showing a more mortal side of Ian Fleming's character.

8 stars for this great action movie and for the beginning of Bond as 007 agent.
7/10
The first film in the restart of the series about Agent 007
eva3si0n27 April 2020
The first film in the restart of the series about Agent 007 turned out not to be bad, but definitely not one of the best in the series. The action is too stretched yes and the plot is rolling slowly. The double ending certainly does not look bad, though here the film showed a little creativity. Cast really not bad, yes Mads Mikkelsen
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Daniel Craig And Martin Campbell Reinvent Bond In Surprising Fashion
FilmFanAndReviewer00317 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I would just like to say that I am a HUGE Bond fan. I have pretty much seen every single Bond film ever (except for the old "Casino Royale"s) and have been following the character for quite some time now. I'm going to say it up-front despite the fact that I will be placed in the minority: I thought Daniel Craig was a phenomenal choice from the start. Although I had never seen any of his work prior to his being dubbed "007," the one screenshot of him pointing the gun sold me immediately. And did he live up to that? Did director Martin Campbell, who blew all of us with away with 1995's spectacular "Goldeneye" deliver the goods? For the most part, yes, and I'm very content with the film I just saw.

"Casino Royale" (recieving it's first official treatment after two terrible ones), revolves around the newly-instantiated MI6 Agent 007 aka James Bond's first real mission: to play cards. Sound exciting? Backed by the Treasury Department of Britain, Bond must go head-to-head with Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorist organizations, in order to prevent him from winning back the money Le Chiffre lost in a bad investment (due to Bond's intervention). The plan is that without the money, Le Chiffre will be killed by his employers or he'll seek refuge with MI6 (the preferred solution, as M states). However, knowing how reckless our now-young 007 is, M assigns Vesper Lynd, who represents the interests of the Treasury Department, to keep an eye on Bond. Feelings grow, bullets fly, and it all comes to a breathtaking climax. Or two. Maybe even three.

See, that's one of the problems with the film. It has too many climaxes and too many plot lines. The only ways I knew the film wouldn't be over for a while were because I knew the running length and because I knew there was stuff in the trailers I hadn't seen on-screen yet. The film starts off a little slow, and, in retrospect, seems almost unattached to the rest of the film (it actually is, but whatever...). The middle of the film is what's really worth the price of admission. The centerpiece card game, the interaction between Bond and Vesper, and the painful (for men) torture sequence make up the meat of Bond's character development and is really what we came to see.

Because there's a book, I'm going to talk about the "ending." Le Chiffre's death is unforgivably anticlimactic. At first, I wasn't sure if it was really him that died, but when it was confirmed, I was disappointed. The third act is also weak, as the film spends too much time on Bond and Vesper making love instead of what's really important ("Bad" girl...). The ending also suggests a possible sequel, a notion I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with.

Plot holes? Not as many as some other outings, but they're there. Did Solange just let Bond chase her husband to Miami International Airport? Why would Le Chiffre hate Bond for killing the men who want their money back? How can Bond get poisoned, have cardiac arrest, faint, and then change his shirt and be ready for a next hand of cards in a matter of minutes? When did Bond and Vesper get to Venice? How can Bond survive after his Aston Martin gets totaled in a stunt like that (that was more painful for me to watch than the torture scene). And was it really necessary to torture Bond nude?

The performances? Rather, the performance we actually care about? Craig is phenomenal. He's icy cold when he needs to be and hysterical at other times. He's arguably the first Bond who's ever had to portray a wide range of emotions in a single film, and he pulls it off surprisingly well. Eva Green is fine, Mads Mikkelsen is good in his short amount of screen-time. Judi Dench has some funny lines. John Cleese is sorely missed.

Overall, its a fairly good film. Martin Campbell knows what he's doing, Daniel Craig is so close to being as good as Connery, and the title sequence is the best I've ever seen. However, the film's plot has some holes, the editor could have definitely done a better job, and the film could have been a bit more focused (the film's best action sequence, the free-running, has almost nothing to do with the rest of the film). Overall, its worth the price of admission, but don't expect a masterpiece. Maybe it'll require multiple viewings, or maybe I'm just not used to a Bond that's more like Jason Bourne. Whatever it is, it's close, but no cigar.

Rating: ***

P.S. For all of you who doubt the validity of the free-running sequence, the man that Bond is chasing is the inventor of the now extreme-sport, Sebastian Foucan. So, basically, its all for real, and that makes it that much more enjoyable. Also, look out for nifty product-placement from Ford and Sony (007's new distributor) as well as a cameo by Virgin Mobile's Sir Richard Branson.
9/10
A Bond "Re-Boot" that earns its "00" Licence to Thrill
garynorton24 November 2006
After numerous so-called re-interpretations for a grittier Bond, at last we get one that puts its money where its mouth is. All the elements that were wearing thin in this incredibly long running franchise- over the top gadgets (invisible Aston Martin), CGI replacing great stunt work and silly "I am going to take over the world" Bond villains- have gone (for now at least).

A Lotus Esprit that turns into a submarine-from "The Spy Who Loved Me"- was great back in the 70's, but the World and his mother joined in to out do Bond at its own game- OTT action set pieces. 15 to 20 years on, audiences wanted something else from their Action thrillers-something grounded in reality, such as The Bourne movies. It was time for real change.

The Bond producers have not only gone back to basics, but made Bond human again (like Connery did)and given Craig a very good story and script.

The characters are much fuller and Bond is starting out- a good idea given the Ian Fleming source material is now exhausted. Time to re-visit the origins of Bond and really give him a much needed make-over.

The film feels unlike any Bond film I have seen. Some may feel its too removed from the usual- but then Bond is starting afresh, earning his "00" Licence to Kill in the (brutal & messy) pre-title sequence. Daniel Craig is a great acting talent and I am sure he is leaving a little in the tank to gradually shift the character closer to what we know.

All in all, this Bond enterprise has no telegraphed structure like its predecessors. The stunt work and "new" set pieces are fantastic- although its slightly disappointing that the best are loaded into the front of the film. Bond chasing the "free-running" terrorist over a building site and two cranes is breath-taking.

Despite this slight imbalance of action- its necessary for the story to settle somewhat to focus on the quiet tension of the multi-million dollar Poker game that Bond must try to win to bankrupt the villain, Le Chiffre and leave him with no option but to turn terrorist "snitch" thereby gaining Government protection.

The film also benefits from Bonds relationship with the HM Treasury officer, Vesper Lynd- a woman with a razor sharp tongue-just like him. Their chemistry is red hot and the banter- with its sexual subtext- is great without resorting to the totally silly innuendos of the past.

GO see this- enjoy a brilliant new Bond!
8/10
Bond is Back.
TheWillVega21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gone are the glossy gizmondos and poorly written Madonna songs, Bond is back! For real this time! Daniel Craig as Bond was iffy for everyone. Everyone was already accustomed to the now aging Pierce Brosnan, who fit the role perfectly since actor Sean Conery introduced the much loved British superstar in stunning fashion. On opening day, the audience and I sat back and realized this role was near perfectly fit for Craig to helm on for the new generation. Half of me thinks Brosnan would've been great if this would've been his final hurrah, instead of it ending with the abysmal Die Another Day. But the other half, with a stronger opposition, agrees that this role was made for Craig.

Martin Campbell, the man who introduced us Brosnan and the (then) incredibly new and awesome Bond series for the '90s returned to give us another incredible start for the Millennium Generation to enjoy. Gone are the glossy gadgets, poorly written dialouge, and Campy B-plot that plagued Die Another Day. Campbell and crew instead gave us well-crafted (for the most part) explosions and action, exciting casino games, incredibly well-written dialouge, and (finally) real character development.

It was everything Bond should be, and now is. Coupled with incredible new Bond girl Eva Green (who was proved to have superb chemistry with Craig) and a new proper theme song written by Soundgarden/Audioslave Chris Cornell and film composer David Arnold, and you got too much to ask for. Unfortunately, the film does fall flat on its face a few times. The new villain is not as strong as he should've been, and the featured sub-villains were even weaker. You have a great Bond, an awesome Bond girl, a great director, and awesome music...but virtually no real noteworthy villains. Goldfinger, Alec "006" Trevelyan, and Blofeld are a few of the more superior villains in the series to date. If we would've had one on equal caliber, this Bond film would've been even closer to perfection.

Also, typical for a Bond film, the plot is pretty predictable. While it outshines the likes of MI:III, it really doesn't pair up to the 1995 M:I's superior plot line. It makes up for everything else already mentioned, but a clever storyline and a few more good twists would've put Bond on the map (especially since other espionage/spy films this day and age are already on the ball with that stuff).

But minor complaints aside, this really is one Bond worth watching. I will be buying the DVD when it comes out, it'll be worth every penny. Do yourself a favor and see the new Bond, it really attempts to kick out the campiness that plagued the series for some years and really succeeds on many levels. I'll be looking forward to the new Bond movies from here on out and pray that the generation doesn't end poorly, as the Brosnan era proved with the spectacular Goldeneye down to the ill-received popfest that was Die Another Day.
4/10
I watched this movie last night.
thescientist_17 November 2006
The acting was borderline tolerable. That's all I really have to say. The plot is slow and boring and quite frankly doesn't even achieve to be as close to greatness as the previous bond movies. Daniel is not believable enough to portray the character and for the most part of the movie seems to be doing simple rolling stunts and modelling for the camera.

They took a dashing agent character and turned him into a poor quality smuck who probably should have taken a few more acting courses before attempting to go to this role. At best, it was moderately okay. and I'm thankful that I work at a movie theatre and thus watch the movies for free and did not to pay for this disaster. I found it quite amusing however that the plot of this movie is that it is Bond's first mission, yet his missions date back to the 70's and I'm entirely positive that the 70's fashion and linguistics were not of today's and the certainly did not own cell phones.

I have two more things things to say. Clive Owen was smart to say he was too good for this role. and nobody will ever compare to Sean Connery.
8/10
Casino Royale is a near-perfect debut of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond.
msbreviews26 September 2021
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free thoughts, please follow my blog to read my full review :)

"Casino Royale is a near-perfect debut of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond. This brutal version of the famous protagonist is beautifully interpreted by Craig, who contradicted the naysayers at the time of release and delivers a phenomenal performance as the iconic 007. His witty humor, irresistible charm, and excellent line deliveries find a close match in Eva Green's take of the "Bond girl", whose intelligence and strong attitude puts aside any generic, formulaic traits. Mads Mikkelsen is outstanding as always as the vulnerable antagonist, but his impact on the overall picture is slightly underwhelming. The action set pieces are worthy of belonging to blockbusters of today, holding impressive stunt work and cinematography. Martin Campbell creates one of those films I can't pinpoint any flaws. Bond fans will feel delighted."

Rating: A-
4/10
NOT a Bond film - a synthesis of the real reasons why
bzygowski3 December 2013
Essentially everything worth being said has actually been said here, and I can only reiterate: it is a pretty decent action film, but NOT a Bond film in any sense of the word. Numerous points were rightfully made: no gadgets, no decent Bond girls, a laughable villain etc. OK. But in all those reviews I still think one or two things which I think are CRUCIAL for understanding why Bond hard-heads will NEVER accept this movie were not articulated quite strongly enough. Let me try to have a stab at this.

* Traditionally, Bond is not only charming, knowledgeable and keeps his cool - which has been well pointed in the reviews here - but he always looks as if he is actually enjoying himself. Hence the jokes, the quips, the Moore's unforgettable eyebrow, the Connery's honest amusement when presented with the exploding suitcase in 'From Russia with Love'... etc. Bond feels safe, feels confident and likes his job. As a result the viewers never really take any danger or violence seriously and the general vibe of the films is POSITIVE, not NEGATIVE. Casino, but also QoS and Skyfall, are unforgivably SERIOUS and GRIM, and Craig is about as relaxed, cocky and at ease as Ulrich Matthes playing Goebbels in the Downfall.

* There is a LOT of self-conscious humorous kitsch in ALL Bonds save for Craig's, even if in Brosnan's Bonds it often turned into absurd technology such as the invisible car. Come on, people, am I the only one who thinks that Bond equals a fake horse rear concealing a mini aircraft, a submarine shaped like an iceberg, a rocket launcher hidden in a leg-cast, cello sledding, and even Lazenby's Scottish outfit and his lame pick-up lines...? And it's not even the GADGETS per se that are the key; it's the wacky humor that could work even without any specific items handed out by Q. It's the general feeling that the writers, the art department and the whole crew were having great fun doing the movies. All three Craig's Bonds are - again - very SERIOUS, and all "gadgets" in CR are not only serious, but, inexcusably, simple branded products.

* The point of all the best villain schemes is they are dramatically, un-believably, cartoonishly EVIL - I mean, mad-scientist type of evil which is another sign that the writers didn't take things too seriously - and yet in the "mesoscale" the plot makes sense. There are no silly loopholes, obvious goofs or omissions, no cheap plot devices. In Casino Royale, it's the other way round. The general storyline is believable - there in fact ARE people providing services to war-ridden countries - but the "mesoscale" lack of logic, continuity and believability has been well exposed in other reviews here.

The major sin of CR, but also QoS and Skyfall, has been simply being too serious. And lack of humor usually betrays lack of confidence and/or lack of intelligence. The direction where the series is going is simply appalling. Honestly - do we REALLY need another SERIOUS spy/action film?
10/10
One of the better James Bond movies for sure!
chibifiedeyes28 December 2006
One of the better James Bond movies. This time they've ditched the unbelievable gadgets and the car shoot-up scenes (which always seemed tedious to watch). Without the handy unrealistic toys and the boring "bang bang shoot keep driving car blows up" scenes, the movie had a real plot line with believable turns and surprises.

The action scenes were also more interesting and believable as James Bond defeated his enemies through skill and quick fingers instead of "just the stand there and bash your enemies up for the next fifteen minutes of this movie".

Daniel Craig was an excellent James Bond and at delivering his lines and it was nice to see that for once James didn't sleep with every attractive female in the movie and actually had some real romance and character development.

Overall, one of the better ever James Bond movies -- a great storyline with some new and improving features, polished with a beautiful ending that brings back some of the notable "flavours" of all the James Bond movies.
10/10
Boy was I wrong!
ntvnyr3025 April 2007
Around the time when there was talk about canning Pierce Brosnan, I did something a bit uncharacteristic: I wrote to MGM, stating that Brosnan was the best Bond in years and it was a mistake to let him go after only 4 films.

To see Brosnan play Bond for the first time after having seen him play the role 4 times previously would have required a great suspension of disbelief. He would have looked older, but that usually doesn't stop today's filmmakers (i.e. the upcoming Indiana Jones film). On the other hand, although Brosnan was a good Bond, his films overall were a little over the top. Frankly, of his 4 films, I think I actually sat through 2 of them. I thought "Goldeneye" was terribly overrated. The usual sex jokes were tiresome. Speaking of tiresome, I just couldn't see Halle Berry as a superspy in "Die Another Day." Granted she is nice to look at, but a spy---uhhh no. And the gadgets were getting unrealistic---I mean, an invisible car?! Also the product placements were getting ridiculous---James Bond driving a BMW?? I'm not even a Brit and I was insulted. Bond belongs in an Aston Martin, period.

This film was a very pleasant surprise. It returned to the basics. I was initially and prematurely disappointed after not seeing the "gun barrel sequence" immediately, but was ecstatic after it was slipped in at the end of the opening scene.

Craig was impressive in all respects--his physicality, acting, and stunts. I remember reading during the filming that he broke a rib--it's no wonder why! There was incredible action throughout; the opening chase scene was brilliant.

The Bond girls were all hot!--especially LeChiffre's gal. The opening song was good and the meaning of the title was suddenly apparent after the final scene. Also, I can never tire of hearing Monty Norman's "James Bond Theme". It should be played in every JB film unadulterated---that is, not trying to make it more hip-hop etc. It's awesome as it is after all these years.

I have been a huge Bond fan for years and am looking forward to the next flick with Daniel Craig. This is the best Bond film/Bond song since "The Spy Who Loved Me" in my opinion.

BTW, for those of you who didn't notice, Craig played the evil priest dispatched to kill Elizabeth (Cate Blanchette) in the outstanding film of the same name.
10/10
Review of "Casino Royale"
compi243 July 2011
"Casino Royale" is the story of ,MI6 agent, James Bond's (Daniel Craig) first mission. Fresh off of receiving the coveted "00" status, Bond begins the long and elaborate task of bankrupting the world's top terrorist financier, Le Chiffre (Mikkelson). Now, I am, proudly, a James Bond fan myself and when I had heard that they were going to reboot the franchise ala "Batman Begins"; I was elated. Because honestly the last few Bond films have been something off a showcase of silliness. After watching "Casino Royale" I can safely say that this film effectively restores the Bond film series, as well as the James Bond name, to everything that author Ian Fleming had originally intended. This film features one of the most dynamic portrayals of the character I've ever seen on film. Sure, everything from the previous films is there (the charm, wit, etc.), but Actor Daniel Craig brings some aspects to the character I've never seen before. He does a really profound job at accentuating just how much of a cold bastard 007 really is. Though he also does a good job at depicting the more loving side of Bond -like I said. . .dynamic. With all these different shades of Bond in tow, Craig creates, quite possibly, my favorite representation of the character. Eva Green does a fine job in her role as the beguiling treasury agent, Vesper Lynd. Green and Craig construct a deep kind of chemistry that I have yet to see any other "Bond and Bond-girl" develop on film. Also, cheers to Mads Mikkelson for playing one of the creepiest Bond-villains I've ever seen. In terms of technicalities, The camera-work is very clean, and editing is logical and accurate. The soundtrack utilizes the classic Bond Theme, but it also employs some extra nuances that I found to be quite suitable for the overall tone of the film. The screenplay is very well written, giving Bond some of the funniest lines I've ever heard his character say. The action is there too, as this movie features some of the coolest and most intimidating set pieces I've seen on film. I mean like some real "Uncharted 2" stuff happens in this movie- pretty awesome. Anyways, I sincerely enjoyed "Casino Royale", for it re-establishes the James Bond franchise in a place that I feel is very fresh and provocative. Awesometacular.
10/10
The nay-sayers are wrong, completely wrong (SPOILERS)
A_Friend_of_Sarah_Connor20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you were a Bond fan in Febuary 2005 and you didn't know that, A) Pierce Brosnan was no longer playing 007 and B) The next film was going to be an adaption of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel "Casino Royale", then you were either living under a rock or would not accept that Brosnan wasn't Bond anymore. Unfortunately, some people optioned #2, and when it came to the casting of Daniel Craig as the sixth actor to play James Bond in the 21st movie in the 44 year old film franchise, they went berserk. These fan boys were and still are obviously insane, making countless postings on internet forums and going so far as to make crude "website" (I use this term very loosely) against poor Craig. The film was "debated" (Again, this couldn't be further from the truth) for over a year and a half, but finally, it opened in theaters on Friday, November 17. Even way before that, a few anonymous critics came forward, saying that they had seen the film and had loved it. But really, from all the coverage, would we expect anything less than a great film?

In the end, Craig and the producers had nothing to worry about. I have no problem saying that "Casino Royale" is the best Bond film since "Licence To Kill" and almost completely makes us forget the bland Brosnan era. What makes this film so good? After the dismal "Die Another Day", Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson decided to go back to the basics, which meant doing a reboot and making the story somewhat plausible this time around. The film starts out with a stylized black and white pre-title sequence, showing Bond kill two targets, earning him a 00-licence to kill. His first mission takes him to Madagascar to spy on a terrorist named Mollaka. After a breath-taking chase, Bond kills the man and runs off with vital evidence that eventually leads him to terrorist banker Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). After thwarting an attack on a huge airliner (In another spectacular action set piece), 007 is forced to go to Montenegro, where Le Chiffre will try to recoup his lost funds in a high stakes poker game, otherwise he will be killed by his own organization.

While there, Bond meets treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and two allies, Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) and René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). For anyone who's read the book it's based on, some of this is nothing new, but the last act is not only inspired, but the very end had me cheering. The gambling scenes are very tense, and even though a bit long, add character to Bond and Le Chiffre. The audience has to pay close attention to the plot, as it moves very quickly and it's extremely tight even at 144 minutes. The entire cast looks as if they're having fun, especially Mikkelsen. Le Chiffre is not only a menacing villain, but we come to feel sorry for him.

Other aspects, such as the title song "You Know My Name", production values, and action all score high points. One chase at the beginning is so brilliantly edited and choreographed that it stands up to multiple viewings and excites every time. Then there are the fights, which are well-staged and get fairly bloody. The story itself stays close to the plot and themes of Fleming's book and even improves on some parts. It's nice that many scenes that could've dragged, go by quickly, but gives the audience time to enjoy them. One example is the hiding of the Ugandan bodies in the truck of a bad guy's trunk. Plus the title sequence is refreshingly old-fashioned, being the best since the earlier efforts of the great Maurice Binder.

Then, there's of course the target of all those months of abuse: Daniel Craig. Watching the film, I got the sense that not only did he like what he was doing, but he tried to make the character relevant to our time. The James Bond of "Casino Royale" is raw and violent, but when we need humor, Craig is there, so we know that he has the capability of pulling off one-liners. One scene is made less painful because of the actor, but is still able make people wince. Probably my only complaints of this excellent film are that some things came and went far too fast (Bond's first two kills and the Aston Martin car chase, which are basically spoiled in the trailers) and the gun barrel was, well... completely different from what we're used to. (I have to admit, though, if this was a one time thing, I'd actually like it more). When all is said and done, it's obvious that James Bond is back with CR, and I wouldn't mind seeing something like this in Bond 22. 9.5/10
9/10
This is why we love Bond
masonmorgan-9291710 December 2016
Saying that Casino Royale was a big deal is quite an understatement. Back before the movie even came out and Daniel Craig was announced as the next Bond, the casting choice wasn't too well received. People didn't know who this guy was and many were worried that their beloved James Bond would be ruined after a legacy lasting almost half a century.

It's now 2016 and Martin Campbell's Casino Royale is widely recognized as one of the best Bond films ever. Daniel Craig basically re-invented Bond, giving the character a humanity and intimacy that we have never seen before. Campbell's gripping narrative and incredibly choreographed action scenes paired with a star-making performance from Craig makes Casino Royale not only one of the best Bond films, but arguably THE best Bond film ever.

To start, the characters in Casino Royale are impeccable. Not only do we get one of the best Bond actors to ever portray the legendary character, we also get the best Bond villain and the best Bond girl yet.

As mentioned before, Daniel Craig quite literally re-invented James Bond. While this is quite a bold statement, it really is hard to find fault in his performance. His ability to be an excellent action star is showcased in the film's first action scene, which is undoubtedly one of the most gripping and intense action scenes of modern cinema. Not only do we get an excellent action scene, but we see Craig's characterization as Bond already start to form through a chase scene with literally no dialogue. This due to the excellent screenplay. Not only was Craig an excellent action star, he also brought a surprising amount of personality to his straight-faced portrayal of the character. Not only does he manage to display such deep levels of emotions that we would never expect a character like Bond to have, he does so mostly without dialogue. Bond is completely fleshed out here as we see him display surprisingly deep levels of intimacy and real love.

Another great thing about the characters is that the villain is just as fleshed out as Bond is. He isn't some crazy, over-the-top madman who wants to destroy Bond. He is really just a desperate man who is trying to save his own skin. He isn't trying to kill Bond with a laser or kidnap the girl, he's quite simply just trying to get out of debt with a viscous militia he made deals with and Bond gets in the way of that. Mads Mikkelsen does a fantastic job as the desperate and nervous villain. But the great thing is that he never really feels like the villain in the sense that we can relate to everything that he is trying to do. He isn't trying to end the world or anything crazy like that, he is just trying to save himself, which made me care quite a bit about his character. He may look evil and incredibly threatening, but in the end he is just as vulnerable as Bond is, which makes for some excellent interactions between the two characters.

The character of Vesper Lynd, in which Eva Green portrays, is also surprisingly important to the plot, as far as Bond girls go. Vesper Lynd is really the person who created the Bond that we know today. Bond felt such a deep love and caring for Vesper that he was willing to put his old life aside just for her. The heartbreak that ensues is essentially where our Bond was "created" as one line of dialogue is really all we needed to see the drastic change in his personality. We know after this that Bond will never be the same again.

The action scenes are also incredible. Pretty much every single action set piece in Casino Royale is memorable and totally gripping. They are always entertaining, but never too over-the-top to be silly. Casino Royale has a perfect mix of realism and fun that ensures the entire film is immensely engrossing even when it isn't one of the action scenes.

Martin Campbell took the harder and risky approach to a Bond film in the sense that he brought a never before seen amount of humanity to the legendary, tough-man character. His experimentation with darker themes and high levels of intimacy with the audience completely paid off. The entire film is completely engrossing as a cast of the finest Bond characters ever are mixed with some incredibly exhilarating action sequences. Seductive in more ways than one, Casino Royale manages to be thoroughly entertaining while also serving as a character study for the new generation. A truly unforgettable and intoxicating experience.
10/10
Purely amazing. I'm speechless.
catbunwars19 November 2006
Sean Connery. George Lazenby. Roger Moore. Timothy Dalton. Pierce Brosnan. They have NOTHING on Daniel Craig.

This film is nothing short of spectacular. The action, dialog, love scenes, the characters, everything: perfect. It's all very different from what we've come to expect of our hero Mr. Bond. The film series has undergone a very gigantic change. Is change a good thing? Yes, in this case I believe it is. Some viewers can't accept change. Yes, James Bond is very cold and heartless at points. Yes, he IS driving a ford focus near the beginning. Yes, he does crash his Astin Martin car very quickly (one that contains no evident gadgetry by the way). Yes, he does seem like a very VERY different Bond. But you have to consider one thing here: this movie is the story of James Bond and his first mission as a double 0. He's a little rough around the edges. He has to find his groove. Were any of you perfect on the first day of YOUR job? Aren't you better at it now? The truth is, this is a welcomed installment into a series that was beginning to get horribly worn out in the first place (hint hint, every Bond film that Pierce Brosnan starred in, except for Goldeneye which was also directed by Martin Campbell, the director of this film). It's kind of like License to Kill (one of my favorite Bond films). That film was very different in the sense that Bond took on the role of somewhat of a vigilante after his license to kill was revoked. I loved the change of pace in that film. I also loved it in this one. Seriously, think about it. Typical Bond film: Opening action scene; title song; more action; brief explanation of a villain and plot; more action; sex scene; more plot development; action; more sex; action; big showdown between Bond and the main villain where the bad guy is killed in an interesting and unique way.

I don't know about you, but I was getting sick of watching film after film that followed this formula. Thank you Daniel Craig for being the best Bond yet. Thank you Martin Campbell for directing a truly wonderful film.

ONE SMALL PROBLEM: NO R. I would have liked to see one of those famous comic relief scenes in which R shows Bond the new gadgets.

But hey, do we REALLY need him? This film is perfect otherwise. I believe John Cleese wouldn't fit into this new style of Bond film making.

Yay Daniel Craig. You were great in Munich, you were great in Layer Cake, and you were spectacular in Casino Royale.
10/10
WOW! A New and Grand James Bond
asdodge12 December 2008
It has never been more exciting or impressive to meet James Bond- not since his original introduction in "Dr. No." In one of the few instances where the movie tries to remain loyal to the general idea of the Fleming book, Daniel Craig hits the ground running (literally!) and takes over the role of Bond in a true tour-de-force." This is, in my opinion one of the 2-3 best Bond movies ever, maybe even #1. "From Russia With Love' also deserves heavy consideration, and I also feel that "Goldeneye,' "Live and Let Die," and "The Man With the Golden Gun" (heavily underrated) also are near the top.

"Casino Royale" was the book that began James Bond, and how apt that the newest Bond finally gets to show the start of James Bond. Daniel Craig may not look like the tall, dark-haired Bond described in the book, but he is Bond in attitude and direction.

This movie starts at a frantic pace and never lets up. No true weak spots are found among the myriad actors brought in. Bond is not the smirky, pun-filled Bond he is with Moore, or the smug, twinkle-in the eye rogue that Connery was. He is a tough guy- an assassin who understands his job, but must learn the subtler nuances. Craig pulls it off beautifully. Every other actor to play Bond has walked into the role of an already known, successful, and confident Bond. Now we get to see him starting, making mistakes, and doing the hard jobs the hard way. No clever gadgets, no super tanks or gyro-copters. Bond is an agent of the technical age now; he is computer literate and savvy, yet still the best at what he does. Critics who say he is not Moore or Connery miss this subtle point. Connery and Moore played Bond after he "made it." Craig is bringing Bond into the game.

Most of the Bond formula is here... the pre-titles set-piece, the villains (but more realistic and understandable than the world-conquering maniacs so prevalent in the Bond films), the explosions, the fights, the puns, the sexy ladies (though stronger and less-eye-candy types), even the intense chase. Although, without giving it away, this Bond film does the standard chase in a new and even more-pulse pounding chase. How can they top the boat chase from "Live and Let Die," the motorcycle chases and car chases, even helicopter chases in the other Bonds. Well, you will have to watch the main story opening (after the credits) to see how they do it, but they do do it- and in the most ironic way compared to the previous great chase scenes.

Some of the Bond formula is missing- the opening sequence has done away with the Binder nude silhouettes and gimmicks, and the opening song ranks just behind "Live and let Die" as the best James Bond theme (at least, for pop/rock standards).

The plot, in line with the book, involves a criminal banker named "LeCiffre" who has been gambling and making dangerous investments with money he is supposed to be safely investing for his crime-lord and terrorist/insurgent investors. After a failed stock gambit, LeCiffre must raise $105 million dollars quickly or face being rubbed out by his investors. He plans to do so through a high-stakes poker match. Bond is sent in to pit his wits at cards against leChiffre. The plan being to bankrupt LeChiffre and force him to seek protection from the "good guys" in exchange for his knowledge of his clients. Bond is aided by an agent from the Treasury, Vesper Lynd and Agent Rene Mathis (both also appear in the book). However, plot within plot and betrayals find Bond in the middle of bigger machinations by a secret criminal organization.

To the critics who somehow find fault with this film... forget Connery and Brosnan for now- let Craig do the character this way. This is not the suave and sophisticated, clever and know-it-all Bond you may be used to... this is the Bond still learning, and the movie is fantastic.
10/10
Best Bond film I've seen in awhile!
dankin081024 November 2006
Well, I went and saw "Casino Royale" tonight with my cousin...and even though he didn't like it, I thought it was bad ass! To all the pre-release haters out there that wanted to boycott the film b/c they decided to cast Daniel Craig as the new Bond, you all were too early to judge...and for that, I do not consider you fans of the franchise.

As we've all seen over the years, actors that have played 007 come and go, but the character remains...and from what I saw tonight, Craig definitely puts one helluva effort into making this Bond movie a good one, and if he is nominated for any awards for this movie, he's got my vote, and he's definitely got my vote to be in as many Bond movies as he wants to be in.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope it helps you all decide whether to see this movie or not.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Truly Outstanding
martanius22 November 2006
Don't read any of this stuff. Don't ask anyone anything about the movie. It has been years since a movie kept me in suspense and I am really thankful I didn't wait to see it. I originally thought he was going to be awful as Bond. I was wrong. I think this is the best movie in the genre in the last 10 years. It is so much less than all the other bonds but at the same time so very much more. By getting rid of the endless intricate plot details and elaborate schemes they had a lot more time to flesh out the little details. I can't believe how much I liked the woman in the movie. Never has a bond flick had less to do with women but at the same time she all but makes the movie. I can't remember caring for anyone in a movie of this genre like I did for both Bond and her. All I can say is I may be going back again for the first time ever to see the same movie twice in a theater. Hopefully this was just the first of many wonderful "shopping" days.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Simply Amazing
skeleton_crew022 November 2006
This is by far the best James Bond film I have seen! For the first time I left the theater wishing that I was James Bond. Daniel Craig is stunningly amazing and I cannot wait to see him again in his next James Bond Film.This Bond film doesn't even compare to previous films. The director made Bond more cruel in this one. I don't say that meaning it's a bad thing, in fact, it is very good. It is much more realistic in the sense that an elite operative would be a little meaner than previous James Bonds. At the same time though, you don't loose any of the essentials for a James Bond film; You still have the exotic cars, the sexy women, the flashy suits, and many, many, many action scenes that will have you at the edge of your seat. If you are a James Bond fan, I highly recommend Casino Royale; Daniel Craig is amazing and in my own opinion...the best Bond to date. I would also like to just say to the people that were not pleased with this movie because of the content, if you read the book Casino Royale by Ian Flemming, this film follows the book with only a few changes that are very minor.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Move over Batman, Spiderman – make way for Bondman!
RJBurke194215 January 2008
Ah, action heroes...gotta love 'em.

It's a shame, actually, that Hollywood must now always resort to fast action, fast cars, and fast women to make a meal of good stories.

So, forget about the actual story – just watch as Bond (Daniel Craig) breaks through walls a la Terminator, jumps off tall cranes and buildings without a skyhook, swings through dark corridors and stairwells without a bat of an eye – well, almost – while chasing and murdering the bad guys, of which there are many. In fact, M (Judi Dench) even threatens to have him killed at one point... Whew, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

This film is interesting for me for three reasons only: first, it's fascinating to see Craig is a role so different for him, despite his early foray in Layer Cake (2004), a gritty gangster movie I really liked; second, the hand-to-hand fight scenes are cruelly well done, equal to or better than any I've seen in the Jason Bourne saga with Matt Damon, who's no slouch at all; and third, the special effects are gripping, almost to the point of stopping breathing as you watch, and testifying to the highly professional cinematography and editing.

So, that's entertainment – up to a point. And, that point was reached when Bond (as per the original novel) is tortured in the cruelest fashion...for a man. Those scenes weren't entertaining at all: they make you wince, your skin to crawl and your thoughts to scream 'Stop!' However, I applaud the producer, director and actors for pulling it off: life ain't always nice, and here's why... Hence, if you care about your kiddies' dreams, don't let them see this movie.

The crash-up, bash-up aspect is probably a bit overdone for me, but I can imagine how the younger set of today sees it all as almost ordinary, given the diet of Arnie, Damon and Willis movies that have splashed across screens in the last few years.

Pity – because with this rehash and restart of the Bond genre, there was a chance to make a difference. Too bad...

So, watch this one for the technical skills and excellent production standards, but little else of substance...except perhaps to note Craig's running style, which he does a lot of in this one.
8/10
The Bond Begins
tomimt28 December 2006
There was an absurd uproar, when it was announced, that Pierce Brosnan wouldn't be Bond anymore. The uproar continued, and it even got a bit more absurd, if that's even possible, when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond, mainly because Craig isn't anything like his predecessors; he's muscular, blond, blue-eyed and bit brutish in looks. But all the same to me, I'm not a hardcore Bond fan, I know there's been five different actors before him and in the end only thing that matters is, that the acting works and the film is good. And for these points the movie delivers.

Now Craig is Bond you've never seen before, well Dalton was a bit like him, but Craig is more arrogant, more self aware and colder. He's something you'd expect a double 0 agent to be. And he's not indestructible man with a gadget to safe him in every turn. There actually are few gadgets in the film and these few are in the realm of believe. And it is evident, that Craig has charisma, that appeals to women, at least that was the general consensus among the ones I saw the movie with.

The action is greatly constructed from the first scene to the last. From the acrobatic Parkoire escape to the drowning Venize building it all works and makes you sit on the edge of your chair. Bond shoots and beats the thugs and occasionally blows them away and it all is entertaining and yet the film is more down to earth than the previous movies, when the action is in question.

Only minus I found from the film is, that it really is a bit too long. A couple of scene feel too forced in and clichéd. The film could have been two hours long without any feel of unnecessary loss of story.

In all I finally understand why 'Casino Royale' is the most successful Bond at this moment: it breaks the formula of the genre, it genuinely is different, like Dalton's Bond tried to be in the 80's. Bond has been upgraded to fit today and that isn't a bad thing. Unless you want that old formulaic movie, in which case it might be better for you to skip this one and get back to oldies.
9/10
Bond is Re-Born! Excellent. Breath-taking.
tfn6512516 November 2006
I went into this film expecting to be disappointed. I thought - what's left to do in a Bond film and after the last Bond film I thought the genre was dead (ridiculous CGI let-down). I also felt the trailer gave me the impression that the film was going to formulaic. How wrong was I. This as they say, is the authentic Bond - which in itself is ironically the twist. I don't think even the Connery films were as dark or convincing as this (in their time). This Bond really is 'not a nice guy' - honestly - how could he be? Real espionage is unpleasant and this new/ real Bond is almost as unpleasant as the bad guys. This is just what the Bond franchise needed to survive - a real good 'kick up the ****'. I think I actually want to own the DVD.....
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Triumphant Reboot
david-meldrum1 October 2021
All these years later we sometimes forget what was at stake for Bond when this was released. Post-Bourne and post-9/11 a lot had to change, and within minutes it was clear a lot had. The Craig era - my favourite Bond, to be honest, would be marked by visceral excitement, risk-taking, and moments of genuine emotion. This is a brilliant reboot, something no one expected but everyone knew was needed. I'm not one of those who complain at perceived longueurs in the card game sequence - there's plenty of jeopardy and set-pieces of other types to break it up; the heart-attack sequence is blisteringly tense. Never had the Bond franchise had more on the line - and rarely did it both meet and subvert expectations so effectively.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
When you have an Adrain Paul out there....how could
edwardbutka21 November 2006
he not be used as James Bond? The action is great and the technology is always interesting, but this version of James Bond is very bland.

This version of Bond is one of the two least favorable in my opinion. Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson were the best actors.

This guy is just too plan for me. Oh why oh why didn't they get Adrian Paul!

Don't get me wrong, this guy looks good in a suit and has a ruggedness to him that gives some credence to the Bond persona, but there is a certain element of "style" and personality that is clearly absent from this version of Bond.

From my vantage point the cinematography was among the better Bond productions. You felt immersed in most of the action which was very positive.
8/10
A big, shiny, fun-packed mixed bag
joachimokeefe29 November 2006
Pros: They threw out all the old camp JB stuff like Q and Moneypenny and the gadget-packed car. The fights are believable; stunt performers at the top of their game, esp. on the cranes. The plot is on a human scale; no doomsday machines or stuff like that. Daniel Craig is physically right, and the romance angle is well written and acted. Music, credits sequence, cast, are all refreshingly well put together. Amusing nods to the genre.

Cons: Product placement is too obvious; 'I say, darling, let's take a boat on the canal - you don't mind if my S*ny V*io comes along too, do you?' Maybe just me, but the CGI and miniatures were just obvious. About five too many helicopter(cgi?) tracking shots at the beginning of scenes. Plot holes galore. And when do they charge all their phones?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great Play by Craig
fatemaster200322 November 2006
First to say, I'm among the "disagree" side about Craig playing the role of James Bond. But, after I heard from my friends, and see the reviews on IMDb, I'm curious. I really am. So, I went on to the theater, watch the movie, and come out with one word in my mind. And that is, "Marvellous". Craig really gave us a different impression, and he succeeded in making his own version of James Bond. No "martini, shaken not stirred", and still a lot more other differences from the previous 007 movies.

You won't find a "playing soft" Bond. Instead, you will see a "hardcore" Bond. Well, if I have to describe it all, then I will ruin the surprise Craig has made for all of us. So, my suggestion is, watch it, and make your own judgment. He is really something. Believe me.

Definitely worth watching, and buying the DVD.

My rate: 10/10
10/10
Bond Royale
lareval9 August 2021
Daniel Craig first Bond movie is a masterful action thriller on its own right. Spectacular, suspenseful and with a lot of passionate heart. Not only one of the best Bonds ever, but a Powerhouse of a movie.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Craig saves the day!
scott-sw5 February 2008
After Die Another Day, I thought Bond was finished. Daniel Craig proved me wrong when he took the role by the horns and brought Bond back to what he really was: a ruthless assassin. We begin when Bond gets the status he needs to be a 00 agent. We then move to Africa where Bond is after someone who was paying off someone who makes money off terrorism. It eventually leads him to Bermuda, where he must wine, dine, and dazzle the women to find a nefarious plot to take place in Miami. There, he learns of a plot to destroy a plane. The hope of the financier is to manipulate the stock market so he can get rich and finance more terrorism. His last ditch effort is to make headway at a poker tournament at Casino Royale in France. Bond teams up with a beautiful Vespa (Green) whom he falls for. It eventually leads to a mysterious plot twist that keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. In the first place, Craig is definitely what the fans wanted in Bond. We no longer have a pretty boy who makes wise-ass comments for mere laughs, but rather out of an overly masculine ego. Craig also makes the role very physical. This is the first time when you see Bond bloodied, bruised, in pain, and vicious. The fights are so well choreographed, the audience will really feel pain and appreciate the physical prowess it would take to be an agent. My only gripe was that the movie was drawn out a little too long. Other than that, Bond returned to the top of his game. My hat is off to Craig. I hope he can continue this momentum.
9/10
Excellent introduction to a new James Bond
roondogbb16 October 2021
Since viewing No Time to die in the cinema recently I have wanted to go back and watch all the Daniel Craig, Bond films. I saw his final film so I had to see where it all started for him in Casino Royal. Casino Royal is a departure in style from the James Bond films of old, where James was rather more one dimensional, here however he shows emotion that hasn't been seen up until this point. Craig's chemistry with Eva Green who play's Casino Royal's Vesper Lynd is tantalizing and the arc of their relationship in the movie is great to watch. Much better than the women of the old James Bond movies who felt more like eye candy that acted as conquests for bond and recipients to his one liners. Eva as Vesper feels like Bond's equal on the screen. Also worth noting is Mads Milkkelsen as Le Chiffre. His acting ability is amazing and truely brings out the full potential of what Ian Fleming had imagined the character as. Just watch the poker game within the movie and you'll see this amazing acting. Worth the price of the movie itself. As for the rest of the movie. It has everything else you could want in a bond movie. Excellent locations. Madagascar, Montenegro etc. Great choreographed fight scenes. That are some of the best yet. So overall 9/10 for Daniel Craig's first outting as bond. See it. You'll not regret it.
9/10
One of the best Bond films
Obo-219 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was very impressed by this. "Casino Royale" is one of the very best Bond films. It was truer in feel to the actual Flemming novels than the vast majority of this series. Bond was gritty and had a dark side just like in the novels. The last time that they tried this angle with a new Bond was with George Lazenby in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". I only had one real problem with this film -- Texas Hold-em. What is a faddish form of poker doing playing a central role in a Bond Film? central game in a Bond film. If they felt that it was necessary to choose another game besides Baccarat, they could have picked almost anything else. I fear that this will cause "Casino Royale" to become dated.
Great Bond - Thin Storyline
ajitmahadevan8 December 2006
I like Daniel Craig as Bond. He is ruthless, tough (if slightly too keen) and certainly looks the part. However this movie which could have been titled "The Making of James Bond", as one big omission. Bond, the Mi5, M etc all are on the heels of basically a robber. Plain and simple. After the great villains - Dr No, Scaramanga, Goldfinger, Jaws - all of whom had clearly decided on inflicting collateral damage to the Earth of historic proportions - this Bond seems excessively interested in basically a simple (and not too intelligent mind you) thief who bleeds from the eyes and the shady guys who invest money in him.

Beyond that the women look great and the action is brilliant (the torture scene perhaps a little over the top - reminiscent of Rambo rather than Bond). However, Craig looks the part. However he does not look remotely convincing as the romantic. The storyline of Eva Longoria is very thin...

I look forward to the next film with Craig. Missed the gadgets.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great!!!
sparta201228 November 2006
I loved this film. I will see it again. I will buy the DVD (a first for me as far as Bond films go). It made an instant James Bond fan out of me. None of the others did really. I thought Daniel Craig did a fantastic job...just was utterly amazing in this role. I like the fact that he gave this portrayal a change of pace...a bit of a makeover. He just oozes with charm, sexiness, and masculinity. He brought a sense of realness to the role and I loved the fact that this outing of Bond provided the viewer with more brain, brawn, and wits instead of the usual and tiresome gadgetry and silliness like the Pierce Brosnan ones and some of the others as well. I think a fine choice was made in casting Daniel Craig. I'll see him in anything now. I absolutely loved Casino Royale. It was an excellent and very enjoyable film!!!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is Back.
Dick_Starky27 January 2007
The first roar of the MGM lion resonates like the jolt of a defibrillator bringing the Bond franchise back to life.

For years, the Bond films had been bogged down with outrageous plots, ridiculous villains, and cringe worthy banter. Yet with this installment we get a gritty, refreshingly new kind of movie. Like a Dr. No for the 21st Century, it relies more on sharp dialogue, solid performances, and exotic locales as opposed to over the top gadgets, special effects and stunt- men (Daniel Craig did almost all his own stunts.)

Craig is the best Bond since Connery: rough around the edges, yet still with a gentleman's taste and sly wit.

This sets the bar for things to come, and reinvigorates the Bond series.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Three measures of Gordon's; one of vodka; half a measure of Kina Lillet"
BrunoRatesTheMovies27 March 2022
This Bond sure does a lot of running and jumping. The punches also land harder as this reset/ recast (except M) strips the franchise back down to its bare knuckles. Less gadgets and more Vespa Martinis in Ian Fleming's first 007 novel. He only wrote 14 books, that spawned 21 movies. Still has one of the most sadistic torture scenes I've ever seen. I'll never look at a hollow chair in the same way again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond Has Himself a Tough Beginning
Bogmeister12 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is where we have to begin now, isn't it - as far as the Bond mythology on film. Here - in a black&white prologue, as if we're back in the Cold War. We're somewhere in Prague, actually, where Bond earns his double-0 credentials. Now we're off and running, with the presumed-missing familiar gun-barrel, of this new Bond firing in our eyes and now in full color, the usual eye-catching credits. There was some trepidation in those first few seconds, that this restart, this new beginning would take us too far from the familiar Bond territory, but we worried needlessly. We're still with the slick spy/assassin concept, the blunt instrument with some cold cunning and extraordinary luck attached. If anything, the first major action set piece after the credits in this Bond adventure showcases one aspect of Bond better than all the previous ones, right off the bat (at least matching the best of Connery), thanks to the script and actor Craig: Bond's relentlessness. We're smacked by this in short order as he chases some bad guy who seemingly possesses superhuman tendons, leaping among girders and buildings like some Spider-man super-villain. Bond, as in good shape as he is, can't match this guy in the speed department, but he'll catch him anyway. He is relentless. See, that's 007. Not 001 or 005. Lucky number 007, possessed or driven by some possibly psychotic need to win, no matter the consequences.

Is Bond as good as chief villain Le Chiffre at cards? He can't be. It's established that Le Chiffre is some sort of mathematical genius. Yet, Le Chiffre resorts to poisoning Bond and still loses (not giving anything away here - this plot point, besides being in the novel, was already dramatized way back in the '54 TV version and in the '67 comedy version). You can't stop Bond, that's part of his charm. Not that you can't give it a good try. And quite a few people do, as we've come to expect. But, Bond doesn't slip through these lethal attempts very smoothly in this one, i.e. without a scratch, reflecting the fact that this is an early adventure. He's a superior agent, obviously (as contrasted with another one in the first act), but he's in the really big leagues now. He's extra proficient, very capable, sharp, quick and even smooth already, but lacks that bit of seasoning which, in some clever moments, seems to throw off his timing just that tiny bit - and he usually ends up with quite a few scratches. Actually, Bond looks 90% dead or too near death throughout half this picture, an extreme version of 'learning-on-the-job' pitfalls, and that's where his determination comes in. In the other half of the film, he seems simply unstoppable. He is relentless. There's even a suggestion that he enjoys some of the pain to be endured in such an occupation ('that which does not kill me..') and there's a genuinely uncomfortable torture scene, especially for male viewers. It takes the usual sadism present in Bond pictures to another level.

The plot follows the original Ian Fleming novel for the most part: Bond's central assignment is to beat the main villain at poker (not Bacarrat, as in the original story, an acknowledgment of where 21st century interests lie). Le Chiffre, a dead-eyed, rather soulless sourpuss, funds terrorists, and taking his money assures some points for M's department. Dench is back as M, even though she's over 10 years older than herself in "Goldeneye," which presumably took place later than this mission. But, such quibbles have no real place in considering Bond logistics. Bond, after all, is timeless, an immortal hero, and even though this is regarded as an origin story of sorts, the usual weaknesses of such tales is evaded by not stressing such ideas; there are just subtle hints and an overall casual air for most of the film, placing this in the same general limbo of all the other Bond missions. The film does veer into unexpected territory in the final act, involving Bond's relationship with Vesper, who did not fit very well into the standard femme fatale role; she somehow manages to drag Bond out of his steadfast persona briefly, as well. We can rationalize that all the constant pummeling Bond endured in the first three quarters of the story enabled this startling yet hard-to-believe twist; we can even regard this as another learning experience for a still-young Bond, in terms of reading people; but, how can he not know himself by this stage? Well, at least it was a brief aberration. Craig got all the nuances right, otherwise: he was grim when 'in the moment' of the job and relaxed when chatting with an ally, projecting a fearsome intelligence in all cases. He'll be back. Until then, watch "Dr.No" next. Bond:10 Villain:8 Femme Fatale:7 Henchmen:7 Leiter:9 Fights:10 Stunts/Chases:10 Gadgets:6(blasted cellphones) Auto:9 Locations:9 Pace:10 overall:9-
7/10
If you are male and squeamish, WATCH OUT! I literally passed out during this film.
ed-2554 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I went to watch Casino Royale in the middle of the day, after having a big lunch. I'm 31, and in good health. And I passed out during the torture scene! I realize this might not be so surprising for people who don't know me, but, trust me, it is very surprising.

I remember needing the toilet quite badly, despite having not drunk anything for ages and having gone to the toilet just before the film. Then I remember feeling really hungry, despite having eaten a big lunch about two hours before. Then I got really dizzy, and couldn't think straight, and I realized that I was close to passing out. But I thought if I stood up I might collapse in front of anyone and look like an idiot. So I just sat there, and then I must have lost consciousness.

When I woke up, Bond was sitting on the lawn next to the sea or river, recuperating. I later found out from my friend that I had missed Le Chiffre being killed! Damn. At the end of the film I had thought he was still alive - I just thought this was a loose end that would be dealt with in the next film.

What a disaster ... I half want to go and see it again, to see the scenes that I missed. But what if I passed out again? I'd look like a total idiot.

It was strange. I didn't feel, "Ah! This is horrible! I can't look! I don't want to even think about this!" Or rather, I did feel that, but no more than when watching any of the countless torture scenes in 24 (the Kiefer Sutherland TV series). My physical symptoms seemed to be kind of separate. I'm not even sure that they started during the torture scene. I just know that I passed out during it.

Obviously the way in which Bond was being tortured was more horrifying than in 24. So that does provide a fairly good reason why I would pass out, I think, and I'm not worried about my health.

I admit I am much more squeamish than average. Once in a first aid class when some guy was joking about amputated legs I almost fainted. And it took me about ten goes before I could watch an entire episode of CSI - even now I cover my eyes for the autopsies.

Does this mean I'm a chicken!? I've never thought of myself like that, and I certainly hope not. Anyway, I hope this can serve as a warning to my fellow squeamish men out there.
6/10
Casino Royale
rajdoctor7 January 2007
I went to see this latest Bond movie at Pathe De Munt. I went in the morning show at 10:00 am and was not accepting many people in the theatre, but surprisingly there were more than 35-40 people in the hall.

I knew that the movie had a new Bond. And recently I had seen a beautiful movie called "The Mother" on the VCD, in which Daniel Craig was the hero. I had liked him in that movie. I liked his acting. I liked his charm. I found him too good looking. I read somewhere that Daniel Craig is a gay – I do not know whether this is true or not, but that did not deter me at all in getting impressed by him, and look forward to seeing in Casino Royale.

I loved the movie. I loved the new Bond. The movie turned everything upside down that someone associates with Bond movie. This movie was not a James Bond movie. It was a love story. This movie did not have the high fly gadgets. It was simple. The Bond was someone who gets beaten, is tested at every stage, have moments of death seeing him in the face, a Bond who is ditched by the girl. A Bond who recognizes that "he has a very short life expectancy", a very poignant and touching dialogue every told by Bond on screen.

This is the first Bond who has a truly great body and who is sensitive and can ACT.

The most famous dialogue – "My name is Bond, James Bond" is told at the end of the movie – as the last punch line. This Bond rocks, and leaves me eagerly waiting to see the new Bond movie – hopefully it would be made soon.

Later I heard that this Bond movie was made from the first Bond novel and thus has basic stuff – the first years of Bond that grounded the making of real Bond that we have seen since last 30 years. The film showed the beginning of making of Bond's character. Hopefully for a new Bond – Daniel Craig!
7/10
Solid reboot
robawalker-7741717 January 2022
Craig makes his first appearance as 007 and overall it's really well done. The quality of production and the visuals are fantastic. My concern was the story line was clunky and often confusing. Regardless, still a great first movie to his series.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Overly-long, self-indulgent twaddle
georgek-919 November 2006
Am I the only person in the world who found this new Bond film a total disappointment - with more flaws in it than a Manhattan skyscraper? Instead of coming away thinking how good a film it was, my thoughts were along the lines of: "If I were not watch that again (which is VERY unlikely), I bet I could list at least 50 flaws in that film!" Totally unbelievable rubbish with a 'super-hero' who never displays any of the after-effects of fights, poisonings, or any other setbacks.

How so many critics could have praised such overly-long drivel in a genre where new standards have been set by the likes of the Jason Bourne films and 24 is totally beyond me.

Don't waste your time or money on this rubbish. They are far better spent on buying and reading Ian Fleming's original novel.
8 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A great action ride!
oldman00713 January 2007
I saw this movie and wow...this movie had nonstop action. I've never really been a big fan of the James Bond. They're all pretty good, but a lot of them have too much you know what scenes. This one had 1 scene and 1 minute of it and more action. Daniel Craig has to be one of the best James Bonds. That guy was very good. All the acting was good too. But all of this movie action. That African guy at the beginning was fantastic! He was like a monkey. For a PG-13 movie this movie had a lot of brutal scenes. The torture scene was very disturbing. This movie is for anyone who likes action. The Best Bond Movie so far! Look forward to the DVD! Look forward to seeing it!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Cool new bond. Really bad script & bad directing. Wait for the next one.
sce9pa29 November 2006
I saw the exciting trailer, everywhere i turned i was seeing the new bond. new guy looked cool, so i gave in to brainwashing and watched it.

I am writing this fresh from the movie; I left the cinema feeling completely robbed. One thing: It's all about advertising!!! No matter how bad the movie is, with a lot of advertising and the 007 on the title will make the movie earn its money.

I am just angry because they just make money from the 007 franchise without showing anything interesting; just a remote story to keep it going and fill two hours. Not so much action but I have no problem with that, i like when the movie tries to work with its actors and characters; well none of that either.

well, the new guy playing bond is cool, i liked him, cold killer; forget about the playfulness of all the other bonds, this guy is serious; but mainly because of the script and the bad dialog, it's not his fault; the plot is bad, first half is nice and exciting, second part...well...it gets completely not interesting, completely nonsense, with very bad direction (I thought Campbell who did GoldenEye could pull it off, but in the end he is just another Hollywood director, able to do only action scenes (only two by the way, thus 20 minutes of the movie) and unable to get anything to support the actors and their characters; but bad dialog really kills everything.... in the second part the dialog is plain nonsense, very rigid fake dialog come out of the actors mouths and you don't know where to hide to avoid them!!! you are just thinking - didn't they see it looks out of place???? common sense says it doesn't work at all! We are NOT watching a cheesy teenage romance movie!!!!!! and after 2 minutes of a cheesy exchange of (supposadly) romantic dialog, you are watching another movie....what the...?

and then the main part of the film: the scenes of poker in the casino were just SO BORING (they could at least make it a bit more tense like a Sergio Leone gun fight ;-PPPPP). I don't know whose fault this is (script or director) but they were completely....well...just there...how can i say this...playing poker with your little brother is more exciting!!! (I am not a poker fan by the way, I just know how to play) It starts with a really nice premise, like "you play with your opponent, not with the cards; you study him, bluff blah blah" OK he raised his hand he is bluffing and that's all!!!! nothing else!! childish!! I could win this poker game.

In conclusion I say this, if you saw the trailer you do not need to see the movie. All the good scenes are in the trailer; the rest of the movie just feels like a filling. no joke. this 10 minutes of the trailer are the movie. Just wait and rent it on DVD, it will be the same excitement. Don't give in to advertising brainwashing, the more it is advertised the more crap it is and they want to attract people.

Wait for the next one.
8/10
Bond for the 21st century
Antagonisten6 January 2007
Seeing a new Bond-film used to be something that i looked forward to. But as the last few movies starring Brosnan have been so awful (not Brosnans fault though) i approached this one with a lot more caution. Especially since the premise looked so good. The director previously directed "Goldeneye" which was the only really good Bond-film with Brosnan, Daniel Craig looked like a perfect Bond, initial reports were positive etc. But all the more reason to be cautious in getting my hopes up.

Fortunately "Casino Royale" delivered. I must say i find this to be the best Bond-film in decades. Sure, it's very different from the things we are used to see in Bond-films. There is very little comic relief, very little romance and almost no unbelievably advanced little gadgets. The modern Bond just needs his laptop, his mobile phone and gun to get around. And an Aston Martin of course, some things don't change.

So, while this is not a standard James Bond-film, it still feels like it works so much better than the classic formula. Not least because we've seen that formula so many times that it becomes predictable, as well as dated (electronic gizmo's aren't as fun when we can all get them). Daniel Craig plays Bond more the way you would expect the real Bond to be. A man bereft of empathy, a strong and ruthless person. Well trained, with a face carved in stone and a style to match. Pretty far from the more relaxed suave Bond of Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore. A different Bond for sure, and i don't know which Bond i prefer, rather i would just state that he's different and works very well, and leave it at that.

All these changes are bound to turn people away from the movie. And while i consider this to be a great movie, i don't really connect it that much to previous Bond-movies. Rather it's a great movie in and off itself. It has great pacing with quick and energy-packed action scenes, as well as calmer moments of suspense. It's well acted, well written and makes a lot more sense than most Bond-films of late. No madman wanting to take over the world, but instead a more logical and believable foe. While i admit that i feel a bit of sadness at losing the Bond-movies unique touches, this movie really brings the franchise into the 21st century.

So i recommend this both to people who are Bond-fans, as well as people who just want a well-acted, well-written and action-filled movie. I rate it 8/10.
10/10
Casino Royale 2006
kgreen-1022 November 2006
As the successor from Pierce Brosnan who played his debut in the 3 films of 007, Daniel Craig has made the character of James Bond once again a great success in my opinion.

The only disappointment was that the Q Branch was not introduced in this film, and no gadgets are seen.

Excellent movie, great action. A must to watch this fantastic 21 Bond film in cinemas prior then on DVD at home, so that you can hear and watch better.

Full of action, some romance, all including the true identity of 007.

The Legacy continues to go up in these movies
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best Bond movie ever?
CrazyArty19 January 2022
Daniel Craig in his first outing as James Bond. Bond is put into a high stakes poker game against a black market banker.

This is arguably the best Bond film ever. A terrifying and sinister villain played brilliantly by Mads Mikkelsen, beautiful yet complex Bond girls, an absolutely fantastic foot-chase sequence, exotic locations, and importantly a great plot that you can actually follow. Craig is a dark, cold and tough Bond, a frankly excellent casting choice.

Casino Royale is incredibly engaging and entertaining from start to finish and has great plot twists. Brilliant.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Albert R.Broccoli would be proud!
pianissimo_55010 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have to say when I first heard that after " Die Another Day" that they were not going to have Brosnan playing Bond again -- I was disappointed. When I heard that they were going to do a prequel, I automatically thought it wouldn't work and basically be uninteresting. Well having seen it for the second time on Sunday I could not have been more wrong. Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have produced a miraculous film . With Daniel Craig they have found the most dangerous Bond since Sean Connery . He is totally believable from the opening scene with Dryden and the great thing about his performance is that the audience does not know how his character will react in certain situations i.e the torture scene where he obtains two very uneasy laughs from the audience -- in short he is brilliant. In my humble opinion Mr. Broccoli would be very pleased with this new addition to the series - They took a risk and have made possibly the best film in 30 years.Praise should also go to Martin Campbell for his clear and tight direction.
8/10
Bondelistic!
yespis24 November 2006
Even though I miss a few typical "Bondish" stuff in this movie I really like it.

Daniel Craig is an excellent actor and performs very well as James Bond. He has also the most well-build sexy body of all Bond-actors. Judy Dench is fabulous as M. Eva Green is OK and Mads Mikkelsen is creepy as a villain.

But I miss a really good car-chase, and I miss some more fun/strange gadgets.

+ Good action, great acting performance, good music.

  • A bit too brutal and bloody.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
It's only taken 44 years but...
Joe_Scaramanga16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A few years ago, at a Q & A session with writers Robert Wade and Neil Purvis, I asked them if they thought given the current blockbuster climate, and the expectations of the Bond franchise, it would ever be possible to produce a Fleming-esquire gritty spy thriller. The answer was a resounding ... highly unlikely.

Well, with CASINO ROYALE they have proved themselves wrong. This is about as close to Fleming's Bond as we are ever likely to get. So close, in fact, that I feel the public at large may not warm to it.

That's not to say that CR is a disappointment, far from it. It's just that the public have a perception of what a Bond movie should be, and CR takes those expectations and blows them away within the first seconds.

Wade and Purvis (along with Paul Haggis' re-write) and subtly and effectively extrapolated Fleming's sparse novella into the biggest Bond epic since OHMSS, with which it shares some thematic similarities. Le Chiffre is no longer simply a SMERSH accountant; he is now an accountant for the world's terrorists. After losing a bundle of cash belonging to some rather scary African gentlemen, he is forced to set up a high stakes poker game to win the money back. Bond is sent to make sure that doesn't happen.

That's the bare bones. What the writer's, and returning director Martin Campbell do is expand this to include, in the first hour, two of the best action sequences of the entire series (Bond chasing a rather athletic bomber, then later foiling a terrorist attack at Miami airport). Following this we get into the story that Fleming wrote; we meet treasury officer Vesper Lynd, Bond's contact Mathis, and a shady looking character who turns out to be Felix Leiter.

The poker game is superbly put together; everything we see is vital, building to a superb climax (though as a poker player I would have to question some of the hands the players choose to play with! A6, off-suit!).

I do have reservations, though none of them concern things that the naysayers were so keen to play up. Craig is, simply, wonderful. He's perfect as the rookie Bond around which the whole film is based. Had it been the perfect hero as portrayed by Moore or Brosnan it simply would not work. Moneypenny and Q are not missed, at all, though M does acquire a rather geeky looking assistant, who appears to be some kind of work experience lad, but he gets little screen time, and fewer lines. The switch to poker from baccarat is subtly explained as well. Baccarat is essentially a game a chance, whereas poker is about probability and skill (it's neatly explained that Le Chiffre is a maths genius and can work out the chances of winning in an instant); so rather than a sop to lazy audiences, it actually makes for a more exciting middle section.

So, those reservations: product placement is the main one. Sony have swamped the film with product, the like of which has not been seen since the Perrier lorry in GE. And Ford too manage to secure a scene which plays more like an ad for their new car, than the actual ad on the TV at the moment. Reservation 2: Bond wisecracking during the torture scene... the audience I saw it with were chuckling away, so obviously it worked for the majority. For me, it was just unnecessary.

Overall though, these are minor quibbles, in a film chock full of good things.

For anyone with a knowledge of Fleming's character as he wrote it, this is the film you've been waiting for. If you're a DAD or TB fan, leave your expectations at home, forget everything you've seen before. This is a whitewash of the series which will hopefully usher in a whole new generation of Bond films, and ensure that the franchise reclaims its place as THE most successful, influential and downright popular of all time.

And yes... "The bitch is dead".
4/10
the viewers are not retarded, stop treating us like it
megaworm28 November 2006
i really didn't like how they explained how to play poker during the game. it was really obvious that the characters were just adding in the rules as a sidenote to the audience, and it really detracted from the suspense of the game. lines like "he has to go all in" or "theres now 150,000,000 dollars on the table" are just silly. GOOD JOB, YOU CAN MULTIPLY! 15 TIMES 10 MILLION IS 150 MILLION! WOW! i'm going to edit out those crappy anecdotes before i watch the movie again. also, i have a goof to add. in the scene where james got vesper a new dress, you can see her nipples poking through in the first shot, then they go away in the middle shot, and return in the last shot. i found this pretty funny.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Great Start for A New James Bond
ahmad_nadal12 January 2017
I Probably have watched the best James Bond so far. had lust nailed it, of course with the help of Eva Green who was the perfect love for a perfect agent. We cannot forget about Mads Mikkelsen who always makes the best villein.

Martin Campbell have taken James Bond movies to a whole new level of drama and action. he found the best in Daniel Craig who is a modest actor in my opinion and took some amazing scenes specially that one under the water.

I found some problems with story in the first half of the movie which was a little boring for me and I got annoyed with the many villeins but the second part was very satisfying for me and I had a great time watching it.

MY rating is 8/10.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Solid, Outstanding Performances
illyyyyQ15 June 2020
Solid performance from Daniel Craig & excellent storyline to add to the Bond franchise.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This film converted me!
Sweet_Ophelia11 January 2007
I am not, nor have I ever been a James Bond fan. Before 'Casino Royale' I had never watched an entire Bond movie and even though I know the basic trivia (shaken not stirred) I really didn't have a clue about the intricate back-stories of Bond. However, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Casino Royale'.

This film, based on the Ian Fleming novel and adapted for the screen by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, and directed by Martin Campbell – does not expect its audience to be 007-aficionados. If anything, the film caters to those, like me, who are introducing themselves to Bond for the first time with 'Casino Royale'. The writers have taken quite a cue from the likes of Robert Ludlum ('The Bourne Supremacy') and maybe even Christopher Nolan and his 2005 'Batman Begins'. This time around, the Bond creators understand that audiences prefer their heroes to be flawed, dark and able to get down to the nitty-gritty of things. I may not have ever watched a full Bond movie before, but I have channel surfed and lingered long enough to know that the Bond of yesteryear was always suave, always got the girl and always came out on top. This time around James Bond, played daringly well by Daniel Craig, has ambiguous morals. Sure, he wants to stop the terrorists and get the job done – but he doesn't mind making a ruckus while doing it and doesn't bat an eyelid when an innocent dies because of a mistake he made. He also amuses himself by hacking into his own organization's internal system and getting on M's (Jude Dench) nerves. This new and improved Bond also isn't the womanizer he used to be – this time around he starts to warily wear his heart on his sleeve, and is all the better for it.

Daniel Craig received a lot of flak when he was given this role. Bond fans wanted 'Casino Royale' boycott and websites were devoted to petitioning film execs trying to get Craig canned – all because he was blond with blue eyes and not what traditionalist fans considered 'Bond material'. Well the skeptics have been proved incredibly and unequivocally wrong. Craig, despite the clear-blue angel eyes plays a vicious, deceiving, cut-throat Bond… and throughout pretty much the entire film, I was not entirely sure I even liked him; to be honest he was a bit scary and menacing – which was great! The fight scenes were spectacular (you would expect nothing less in this day and age) and the Montenegro setting was phenomenal.

I am a girl. I am not a Bond fan…. And yet I loved 'Caisno Royale' and will definitely be waiting in anticipation for 2008's 'Bond 22'.
6/10
Far from the best bond, far from the worst
jadflack23 August 2008
The James Bond franchise was given a big overhaul here to bring it up to date and ironically they went back to the original novel which was the only one not owned by the makers of the original Bond films but was filmed lacklustrely in 1967. Daniel Craig was chosen as the new James Bond and this was met with howls of derision and protest and many thought this was the beginning of the end for the Bond franch, all this before film was released.Daniel Craig does not fit the description of James Bond and is far too small, but he brings an air of menace to the role and is a convincing killer type.Film is less jokey and in a way is more believable but still has many contrived moments, and film is overly complicated and jettisons the novel's plot but retains certain moments in the new version.Some good action scenes and film is well made as you would expect but it does have it's dull moments.Critics went crazy and hailed this as perhaps the best of the series, in my opinion it's far from that, but it's not the worst ethier.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond is Bond, same formula different guy, same results-fun
judywalker217 November 2006
After seeing the first trailers I knew that all of the nay-sayers would be silenced soon. Craig is just as good as Bond as all of the rest. Everyone is comparing this Bond version to Batman Begins but I think not. Yes it might be a little of a Connery like reversal but it's still the same old Bond. Same formula, same ugly bad guy, same angry boss (even if she is a woman; which kind of like). But that's good cause the Bond movies are always lots of fun, this one included. Some of the chase scenes were way over the top. Also if you know the Bond formula you know what's going to happen before it ever happens especially with the girl. Though there was one scene that I wasn't expecting. Poor Jeffrey Wright was totally wasted. I kept wondering the whole time what he was doing in this movie. I'm still wondering. They could have gotten any Joe Blow to play Felix. Good, no great actors such as he should have been given a lot better part. I hope he didn't sign up for three films like Craig, but if he did, he seriously needs to talk to the writer about something better for Felix next time. If this is the beginning of Bond at least we know they can't kill Felix off in the other two movies.
3/10
Good Movie...Not Quite Bond
vinea_mayhem18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As an action movie its good. As a gritty spy movie, eh, so-so. As a Bond flick. Not so much.

Here's the problem...Bond is campy and you do a lot of suspension of disbelief because of the genre. If you move to a more "realistic" type of movie more plot is required and your suspension of disbelief requirements get tougher because things AREN'T over the top.

Spoilers....

Take for example the villain. He's someone MI6 wants. Okay fine. But they know where he is and his security sucks so much that everyone that wants to get at him succeeds. So why not just a snatch and grab and skip the poker part?

He wants to eliminate Bond to the point he poisons him. Why? The guy is competition but so is everyone else at the table who better be able to read tells. Especially the obvious ones he has. More, Bond is really just insurance. If Bond wins, well, it beats letting some third world warlord beat your security again and cut your arm off before he gets nasty.

Next Bond doesn't immediately secure $100M and change but decides to have dinner instead so someone can attempt to beat his password out of him. Which promptly happens but is saved by another set of bad guys who waltzes in and blows Le Idiot with Henchmen that Really Suck away.

Eh..."realism" is great but if you're going to go that route then having a plot that's somewhat less linear and fewer holes is required. As a "gritty" spy movie...eh. As a Bond movie? Double Eh.

Entertaining and worth seeing as a general action flick but I guess I'm a purist when it comes to Bond.
1/10
Totally Disappointed from the movie, impressive acting of new Bond
re-7917 November 2006
I have been a fan of James Bond movies since the first movie, I have seen them all and enjoy them all but this one... I just saw it today and I couldn't go to sleep without sharing my rating and views.

James Bond movies normally comes with tons of action, gadgets and impressive scenes that cut your breath, you simply disconnect during the movie from the real world and enjoy every minute of it. This movie instead was a quite cheap one, no stunning action, no amazing gadgets, no amazing scenes, actually it seems to me quite boring and reminded me of simple action movies from about 10 years ago.

If you are looking for something special about this movie, you will be disappointed.

James Bond normally is out there saving the world, this time he is behind a mafia guy..... What a shame.

On the positive side I just can say that our new James Bond can act and his role was impeccable, lets hope that the next movie will be what James Bond uses to be and not just another low budget non sense action movie.
8/10
Bond is back....and in FINE STYLE!!
andre-walcott16 November 2006
I was a little skeptical when I heard Daniel Craig was the new Bond. I didn't really know who he was until I realised he had an important role in Tomb Raider. However, playing James Bond would be no easy task and I wanted it to be done correctly, considering I'm a HUGE Bond fan and have all of the Bond movies(minus the spoofs). I thought Pierce Brosnan was an excellent choice when he was chosen to play James Bond so I didn't want this long awaited Bond to be a disappointment. I'll say this...from the opening scene, you know that you're in for a nice ride. The 10-15 minutes scene after the opening credits is one of the best chase scenes I've seen in a while. Daniel Craig adds a very rugged style to the Bond character...rugged yet smooth. The actions sequences are very well done..a lot of excitement and the locations are lovely. Throughout the movie you are blessed with lovely scenery. The locations were very well chosen.

The mushy love parts near the end went on a little too long but being the longest Bond movie to date...it was OK due to plenty exciting scenes to keep you glued to the screen. Well..Bond is back...Daniel Craig...007 Status and Licence to Kill Granted!!
8/10
Best Bond in a LONG time
agbwillow24 November 2006
I've been a lifelong fan of the Bond films and although I welcomed the Brosnan era, my heart lies with the Connery years - You Only Live Twice being my ultimate favourite. I didn't weep buckets when I learned that Brosnan was leaving the franchise as I felt that the two films after GoldenEye were rather flat by comparison. Die Another Day started out promising (with the scenes of Bond's torture) and I hoped we were finally in for a darker ride but the film soon gave way to the same silliness that marred some of the Roger Moore films.

With Casino Royale, my hopes of an edgy Bond film were finally realised. I was one of the few people in my circle of friends that had seen Daniel Craig in other films and felt able to reassure them that Bond was in safe hands. His performance in Layer Cake was practically an audition for the role and he was also astonishingly good in The Jacket, where he nearly stole the show from Adrien Brody. Unlike his older predecessors, Craig's Bond actually looks like he could do some serious damage with his bare fists - definitely more punch than paunch! Craig has the acting talent to deliver a deeper Bond. He portrays a man with arrogance tempered by a degree of humanity and, for once, shows that he is not completely infallible, both emotionally and physically. It was enjoyable to see that Bond doesn't always land on his feet (sometimes literally!).

Casino Royale had me gripped for its entire length - and it is long for a Bond film. I found the poker scenes to be some of the most exciting, even though I don't claim to know how to play. And the action scenes didn't disappoint either. It was refreshing to see the emotional aftermath of a brutal killing rather than having Bond fire off another glib remark. His tender treatment of Vesper Lynd after a particularly gruesome dispatch was most touching. Eva Green did a great job and certainly portrayed Vesper as more than just two-dimensional eye candy.

There were a few mis-steps along the way. Bond driving a Ford Mondeo - purleeeese! And the title song wasn't up to the mark, although I enjoyed the visuals of the opening credits. Whilst I don't have anything against the usual naked cavorting ladies per se, I didn't miss them. The constant product placement became tiresome and the media coverage before the film's release was certainly overkill. I also thought some of the dialogue in the romantic scenes was rather cheesy and detracted from the love story. You can show depth of feeling with a look or a caress without cringe-worthy lines about 'having no armour left'.

On the plus side, the lines of intentional humour throughout the film were most welcome and expertly delivered by Craig. I didn't miss Q (or R) and his usual array of gadgetry but I'm glad Judy Dench returned as M and I thought her interaction with Bond was handled superbly. The tone of the film satisfied my desire to see a grittier Bond than we've become accustomed to in recent years and I hope this theme continues with the next instalment.

I rate a good Bond film by how many times I'm prepared to sit through it and, considering I've watched Casino Royale twice at the cinema within a week and am contemplating a third visit, I would say that it's right up there with my all-time favourites.
10/10
Best Bond since Peirce Brosnan!
zach-691 January 2007
Casino Royale was way better than I had expected. The music blew me away. I really didn't understand the humor, the action was nostop. I finally got to see Bond behind the wheel of my all time favorite car....... THE ASTON MARTIN V12 VANQUISH! YEEEEEEHAAAA! The romance was sweet. Not much cussing, which was great. The villain was awesome. Reminded me of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers because of the cuts on his eye. The acting was unbelievable. Craig was very impressive as Bond. At first when the movie started I thought he had killed the bond franchise, but as the film kept on building I realized that he had revived 007! I haven't seen all of the films, still need to see Die Another Day. I hope they make a game for this. That would be aweome! Check out 007 Everything Or Nothing! Peirce Brosnan does the voice of Bond. Willem Dafoe who played Norman Osborn/Green Goblin does the voice of the villain Nikoloa Diavolo. Judi Dench was my favorite in the entire film, she was just flat out entertaining! Great film, fairly intense. Great points: The Cars, The Music, The Acting! See this!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
second best in the Craig series, a great drama-thriller with an excellent script, cinematography, and very few shortcomings
jdring200719 October 2021
Talk about a movie that had to sink in.. Hated it first watch, thought it was meh second watch, and by the third time I actually liked it. Now, my fourth watch, I gotta say, especially when compared to Spectre and No Time to Die, it's easily my second favorite in the Craig series, behind Skyfall. The decision to depict a "novice" Bond was daring, but executed beautifully. And that's from someone whose least favorite Bond of all time is definitely Daniel Craig. Nonetheless, he's one hell of an actor and the dramatic scenes in this movie trump the action ones, in my opinion. The suspense is still there, palpable, and the script is excellent. My only major gripes are the wretched title sequence (great song though) and the leap from complete strangers to deeply in love with Vesper Lynd, but maybe that's just part of Bond's character, and with the excellent ending, it is easily forgettable.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Classic "Classic" Bond...87.5/100
dfle36 October 2010
22nd of 23 Bond movies (21st of 22 official Bond movies)

Daniel Craig makes his debut as James Bond, agent 007. In fact, this movie starts the franchise from scratch...it's actually a prequel...to a time before when James Bond actually had a licence to kill. The odd mixture of new elements and returning elements make it exist in a twilight zone world, like all the other Bond movies. By that I mean it's impossible to view all of the Bond movies and find coherence in them. This movie shows solidarity with the Brosnan era Bond (by the presence of a female M) and with the unofficial Sean Connery as Bond movie "Never say never again" (by the presence of a black Felix Leiter).

Anyway, Craig makes for a serious Bond and the absence of Q and Moneypenny in this debut is a promising start...I felt that by Dalton's time as Bond, the balance between seriousness and lightness was too much in favour of the latter, especially by the presence of Q and his gadgets. This is back to basics Bond, and it is done in a modern style, surpassing Connery's first forays with this character.

I'm giving this movie 87.5/100. Just deducting a little bit from it for two reasons...one: it's a long movie; two: there is a great deal of focus on the game of poker here. Personally, I enjoyed this, but for people who are bored silly by this game or just don't understand it, I'm sure they could find it terminally dull for long stretches.

Exotic locations: Czech Republic (thus placing the restart of this franchise in a post-Cold War era), Uganda, Madagascar, Bahamas, USA, Venice in Italy.

Plot: MI6 is trying to find out how a network of terrorist groups is financed. A person by the name of Le Chiffre is central to this...he acts as a reliable banker to 'freedom fighters' (i.e. dictators and the like). When Le Chiffre proves less than reliable, he quickly needs to recover the money he lost, lest he be pursued by disgruntled African dictators. To that end, he organises a high-stakes no-limit poker game...with the hope of winning it himself (sounds foolproof, right?). Bonds spots an opportunity to mess things up for him...if he knock Le Chiffre out of the game, he may leave Le Chiffre with no option but to seek sanctuary with MI6...in exchange for information on the organisation that MI6 is so ignorant of...his own.

Franchise clichés:

Pre-title sequence -

Black and white MGM lion; black and white Columbia animation. The action proper is black and white too. Odd, because the action takes place after the time frame of most Bond movies, although it does serve to hark back to the 'classic' era of movies...even though no Bond movie was ever in black and white! Anyway, this action shows how Bond acquires his "00" status and defines what actually constitutes "00" status as well. You then get the iconic gun barrel sequence, which, for the first time ever, is tied to the action proper. A nice touch.

Theme song -

"You know my name" by Chris Cornell and David Arnold. Cornell sings. Has a retro feel to it...sort of like a Rat Pack kind of song (perhaps). The accompanying visuals are unique to the franchise and interesting. You also hear the famous Bond theme at the end of the movie...since you associate that with the agent licenced to kill, it would perhaps be inappropriate to play it at the start of the movie...before he has actually earned that status.

Q -

As with "Dr. No" - the first official Bond movie - there is no appearance by this character. I really hope that Craig's time is marked by the absence of this character...give him a bit of a rest and reinvigorate the franchise.

M -

Another odd casting choice...Judi Dench continues in the role from the preceeding Bond, Pierce Brosnan. It doesn't really make sense as far as the franchise as a whole goes, but if you forget that, it's fine. Some nice exchanges with Bond, including: M - "Bond, this maybe too much for a blunt instrument to understand but arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand"...Bond - "So you want me to be half monk, half hit-man?". An element of this movie is M's lack of trust of Bond and his methods.

Moneypenny -

Another welcome absence from the franchise. The only time they were remotely interesting was in Lazenby's and Brosnan's time as Bond. However, there is a neat allusion to her: Vesper - "I'm the money"...Bond - "Every penny of it".

Silly female character names - Vesper. Bond remarks on it. Her relationship with Bond is one of the superior ones of the franchise...I like their cat and mouse ways with each other. A noteworthy relationship for Bond, as far as character and dialogue go...almost up there with Lazenby's Bond and Tracy di Vicenzo.

Sexism/misogyny - Can't say that I noticed any. That seemed to end with Roger Moore's reign as Bond, I believe.

Wine buffery -

Interestingly, when he orders a "vodka martini" and the waiter asks him "shaken or stirred?", you could knock me over with a feather if Bond doesn't say "Do I look like I give a damn?"! Another line for the buffs...Bond says - "A dry martini. Wait. Three measures of Gordon's, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet, shake it over ice, and then add a thin slice of lemon peel". Did you get that? Would sir like a parasol on that? Yeah...I'll just have what he's having! Hmm...on reflection, I'm not sure that he wouldn't give a damn about whether his vodka martini was stirred or shaken. The lemon peel has an interesting name...one that Bond gives to it. No clues!
10/10
Simply the BEST BOND yet
FilmFanInTheHouse23 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thank god, when EON Productions decided to reboot the James Bond series after the abysmal Die Another Day. Casino Royale returns the viewer to Bonds root at the start of his career. The story sends him to Casino Royale where he must prevent Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson) from winning the money at a poker tournament.

They couldn't have picked better actors to portray the characters. No big names this time. Judi Dench returns as M again, but this time gives us her best performance yet. Eva Green brings us a remarkable Bond girl in the form of Vesper Lynd. A Bond girl like Vesper hasn't been seen in a Bond film in years. Mads Mikkelson plays a sinister villain and looks completely like the part. Although Felix Leiter has a small amount of screen time, Jeffrey Wright gave the viewer one of the better versions of the character.

Although the story may sound boring, it is actually very exciting and fun to see with a lot of action, with many highlights, which make it too hard to choose the best one. If it's not the chase along the crane, then its tanker at Miami airport or the fight on the staircase. So many possibilities.

David Arnold returns to his music producing best, with possibly his best Bond soundtrack, and Chris Cornell gives a rock sounding theme song, which is better that possibly all of Pierce Brosnan Bond films.

If you could only choose one Bond film to watch, then this is it.

James Bond will return
9/10
Worth Seeing...Twice
doctorx220 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Martin Campbell's interpretation of James Bond, beginning his career as a "Double O" agent, is more than smart, stylish, and action-packed (although it is all of these). It is also compelling. It is the first Bond film since the Sean Connery era in which one finds oneself more interested in watching Bond than his female companions.

This is due in no small part to Daniel Craig's intense, often unreadable James Bond. His on-screen presence is formidable, and his wonderfully angular features and muscular build make him fascinating to watch. Craig's nascent Bond is swift, decisive, and hard. His legendary finesse and signature dialogue have not yet evolved, providing long-time Bond fans with several "inside jokes." The script allows Bond the occasional quip, but the humor here is subtle, far from the clownish sight-gags and continual one-liners that characterized the Roger Moore era Bond. This Bond is grittier, less polished, and more believable.

Casino Royale's opening sequence, shot in black and white, is a beautiful set piece evincing the cold war, using the cold geometrical architecture of a modern Prague office building as a sort of moving Escher print that pulls the viewer into the story. Director Campbell makes use of film noir, high-speed action sequences, and sprawling vistas (ocean scenes, views of beaches, and European cities) to engender the feeling of a Bond film, while creating something altogether unique.

Neal Purvis and Robert Wade's screenplay is smart and involving. Absent are some time-honored, campy Bond film standards: M's secretary, Moneypenny, and her unrequited love for Bond; the obsequious Q and his lab full of improbable, high-tech gizmo's; and the gizmo's themselves (laser pens, guided-missile cigarettes, and so on). The film is all the stronger and more believable for their absence. Just enough of the plot is hinted at for the viewer to piece together clues, but nothing is given away. The story remains riveting up to the last second.

Judi Dench's M is reliably believable as Bond's terse mentor. Her nonverbal reactions convey volumes about what she is thinking and feeling. Mad Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre is cool, sophisticated, and oddly vulnerable; in short, the quintessential Bond nemesis. His relaxed demeanor as he tortures Bond is frightening. Giancarlo Giannini is a pleasure to watch as Bond's European contact, Mathis. Among the principal cast, only Eva Green disappoints as Bond's love interest, Vesper Lynd. Largely this is the fault of make-up and costume; the relatively attractive Green shows up at the big poker game supposedly dressed to kill, but looks more like a four year-old girl who's found mom's make-up and decided to have a go at it. Her lips are painted as red as red can be, and her eyes disappear under layers of eye shadow and mascara that oddly give her the appearance of having a couple of shiners. The next night she shows up in a slinky black lace get-up, which combined with the relentless eye shadow is somehow reminiscent of silent film star Vilma Banky. During frequent spats with Bond, she sits and scowls on a barstool, looking like nothing so much as a sulking high school prom queen whose date has abandoned her to chat up his football team mates. Green's attempts at smoldering looks come across as petulant frowns. Bond's unfortunate throw-away Solange (Caterina Murino) is much sexier and more womanly.

That minor point aside, the cast is solid, and the story complex and exciting. The action sequences are riveting, but happily avoid the overwhelming freneticism of other recent actioners (e.g., Mission Impossible III). I can't remember the last time I actually paid to see a movie in the theater two nights in a row. I did with this one.
8/10
best one yet
RabidCerebral25 November 2006
well i just saw this the other night, and i must say i enjoyed it and i had high expectations from the reviews i was hearing. this was by the far the best james bond movie yet and better yet they are starting from bonds first mission.

the actors in this were superb it had an excellent cast, but one person stood out particularly well. daniel craig our new bond, he is perfect, he is what bond is meant to be. he is seemingly young and flamboyant, and most important of all he is actually a likable character, not some British snob like pierce brosnam.

this movie does not only focus on action like its predecessors, it is full of wits, love and many twists. i have never really liked 007 movies but this movie has won me over. i mean there are a few fake scenes where bond is able to outrun bullets but overall the action is great, the script is great, the actors are great everything is top notch.

if you like action movies, bond movies, thinking movies, poker then go and see this
9/10
A classic action-packed movie
vijayasekar19 November 2006
If the plan is to start it all over again... undoubtedly, this is a great start!!! I love the way in which the movie was presented on screen, classic.

Quite impressive for the director who put Bond back-on-track with his Golden Eye. Now, it's in the next level. Trust me when I say that... I haven't seen a plot salvation good enough for Bond till this movie. Daniel Craig looks bit amateur for a double-0 and it suits the character quite well.

Till day, I feel that some how the portrayal of Bond was unearthly and more like a super-hero. Finally, Bond looks more human and surely a hero. Good work :) And if one is commenting about this movie, I am afraid they do not have the option of letting out the initial chasing sequence. Awesome!!! This is going to be spoken about for a long time.

As a whole, Bond lovers will love this movie as much as Bond himself.
9/10
Wow...wow...wowwwwwwwwwwwww
tex_a_200015 November 2006
I just finished watching Daniel Craig playing as James Bond and I must say that it was the most intense Bond I've ever seen on the big screen.

He brings a rougher element to the usual all suave James Bond, but this new Bond is a man who does what it takes to get the job done while getting the same perks as his previous predecessors. The picture was fast paced action and a battle of wit from the incipient phases of the flick to the very end.

The stunts performed by the new Bond really showed the intensity within the actor and made his presence come to life on the screen which impacted the overall picture in a very positive way. Overall I am very impressed with the production and I can't wait to see Daniel Craig in another James Bond sequel.

My rating for this flick is 9/10...definitely a must watch
8/10
"Yes... considerably."
benjscott6 May 2019
Here we are, the new era of James Bond. Post 9/11 era, the digital age, the new millennium. The world needs Bond as there international terrorists out there disguised as citizens.

When Daniel Craig was casted as James Bond in 2005 after producer Barbara Broccoli was satisfied watching him in Layer Cake (2004). The public was shocked about him being blonde. The fans boycotted him so badly.

In the end Daniel Craig had no choice but to get on with his 5 picture deal contract.

With Dame Judi Dench as the only actress from the 1962-2002 era films return as M was a great bridge to peak into the new era Bond. I'd say Craig and Dench we bloody astonishing in this film along with GoldenEye (1995) director, Martin Campbell. Casino Royale (2006) approved the critics. The fans found it delightful as for former James Bond actor (1973-85) Sir Roger Moore found it that brilliant, he went and actually purchased the DVD of the film and declared him as his favourite Bond eclipsing Sean Connery. Even though in an interview, Connery said that Daniel Craig was excellent!
6/10
Good, but ultimately lacklustre
warren-197627 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What can I say? Underwhelming comes to mind. There are many things to like about Casino Royale, but ultimately it falls flat.

So what's good? Daniel Craig actually does make a satisfactory Bond. Certainly an improvement over the generic Brosnan. Craig makes the role his own, as did Connery, Moore, and Dalton. Thankfully, the action scenes are stunt based, rather than CGI. Casino Royale's Bond is far more realistic, less tongue-in-cheek than he has been in a long time, and it helps the atmosphere no end. The gadgets are restricted to a minimum, and for once, we genuinely feel there is some emotional investment in Bond's romance.

Where Casino Royale stumbles, is in the plot department. It's all over the place. There's no consistency, and it goes nowhere. While I'm glad they tried to be different, there's something to be said for having a central plot and antagonist to defeat. The closest we get to a villain in this film is Le Chiffre, who himself is merely trying to stave off further villains. On top of that, it's not even Bond who gets him in the end. As for the multitude of others, well, they're killed off as soon as they're introduced, with the exception of 'Mr White' who was practically superfluous anyway. It feels like Bond is chasing a trail of breadcrumbs, that never really lead anywhere.

As a result, the action scenes fail as well. They are well executed, but we the viewer, have nothing invested in them. Do we want to see Bond defeat this Villain? Well, we don't know them, so we don't care. Is there anything at stake in this action scene? Well, not really, so we don't care (With the possible exception of the Airport scene, where Bond at least had a disaster to stop). The final action scene would have been great, IF we'd even vaguely known who these villains were, or why they were doing what they were doing. Considering this lack of investment for the viewer, in the action scenes, they feel ridiculously long. How many jumps does Bond REALLY need to do at the beginning, or the man he's chasing, to know that, yes, they're both good at this? How many times does Bond need to chase, lose, and catch up with the bomber at the airport? And considering the many reviews and comments stating how violent and brutal Casino Royale was, I found myself wondering what they were talking about. This is no more violent than the average Bond really, except with less comedy, and a more serious tone, it's marginally more effective. If you want violent and brutal, the average Arnie flick will still out-do this any day of the week without even breaking a sweat.

Ultimately, when the film concludes, it feels as though we are still waiting for the final act, while the preceding acts haven't really lead to anything anyway. Casino Royale is disappointing not because it is especially bad, but because of all the potential it showed, and barely scratched the surface of. Saying that, it's still considerably better than the last couple of Brosnan's.
10/10
The Bond We All Love, As He's Never Been Before
stevinmarshall20 November 2006
When it was announced that Daniel Craig was to take over the 007 mantle from Pierce Brosnan, the outcry was deafening. He's too young, he's not good-looking enough. He's too blonde (!?!) All these worries are groundless, as the latest "re-imagining" of the most successful franchise in cinema history is all set to skyrocket.

The pre-credits action sequence is the Special Agent Bond earning his 007 status with 2 killings - one gunshot and one incredibly brutal, violent one. The producers wanted to revitalise the films after the success of films like The Bourne Identity / Supremacy and they have succeeded in spade-loads. Ignoring the continuity error of having Bond promoted to 007 status by Judy Dench's M in a post 9/11 world, we see the fledgling agent on his first assignment. Pissing off his superiors, making mistakes, getting beaten to a pulp (including a torture sequence that will have every male in the audience squirming), this is as far from Roger Moore's Bond as Snow White is from The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Bond is more human, more accessible and more dangerous than he has ever been. Gadgets are all but gone, as are Miss Moneypenny (apart from a brief name-check) and the suaveness of Pierce Brosnan / Sean Connery. The daft puns are gone too, but a sense of humour is still very much present (BOND: "Vodka martini, please." BARMAN: "Shaken or stirred?" BOND: "Do I look like I give a damn?"). For the first time, we believe that THIS Bond is capable of real cruelty and violence, should the need arise.

The opening credits have lost the silhouetted naked ladies, but are yet still quintessentially Bond credits. The famous theme music is kept to a minimum, but we never forget that we are watching a Bond film.

The direction is confident, but not cocky. the action is breathtaking, the suspense is tangible and the story credits the audience with some intelligence.

Make sure you stay to the end of the closing credits; there's no add-on scene, but it is worth it because you have just sat through the most amazing action adventure film, but the hairs on your arms will still stand on end when you see the now-famous legend JAMES BOND WILL RETURN!

This is still the 007 we love, but as we've never seen him before! Outstanding!
5/10
Good action movie but a disappointing Bond movie
pradyornot16 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Being dissected a zillion times, I am sure you are no stranger to this topic. The eternal debate whether the latest Bond flick, Casino Royale is the best one in the series and whether Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever! It's been almost a year since the film was released and the topic has been done to death.

What triggered this write-up was me watching the movie for the second time on a DVD at home a few days back and I had to purge this demon once and for all. The movie when viewed for the second time, unveiled a lot of important details which I conveniently ignored during my first viewing in a theater in November 2006. Blame it on the excellent hype created and the whole curtain of curiosity woven around Daniel Craig. Not that I came out of the theater with a great deal of satisfaction back then, but the second viewing really threw some light on the whole subject.

Getting back to my second viewing and the observations I made…. Firstly, since the movie opens with the back to basics formula showing how James Bond gets his license to kill (obtains his 007 status) one realizes that the cold war era aspect- an essential part of the earlier Bond movies- has become expendable …quite strange…but then the producers had to start off somewhere….fair enough. Secondly, there is no spectacular opening sequence as is the trademark of all the earlier Bond movies. Disappointed with this, I consoled myself by thinking maybe this is the new style. But if they wanted to change the stylization of the movie opening, they might as well have started the movie with the credits and the soundtrack. Why get into the "classic" opening action sequence in the first place which was so lame.

As the movie continues, there were breathtaking (the chase scene in Madagascar which ends up at the Nambutu embassy) and decent amount of over the top action sequences which followed and I wasn't complaining, but then as I was mid-way, I started missing certain crucial components that form the crux of an enjoyable Bond movie...no Bombshells...there is one called Solange (Caterina Murino) who gets killed just when the temperature was about to rise...what a shame. The main heroine Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is probably the most boring of all the Bond babes...no oomph... no sex appeal...yes she does look pretty but Bond movies aren't supposed to have PYTs...what a shame (again). No gadgets...the villain doesn't come across threatening at all... …maybe the producers wanted that factor to be toned down a bit but it was one of the many things which were muffled (what a shame…again and again and again).

Surprisingly, also the main Casino scene (remember its "CASINO" Royale) was quite drab and clearly looked like it was set up in a studio. No doubt there were some interesting moments but the movie really drags towards the end which is really frustrating.

And finally, Craig Daniel. I had seen the gangster flick Layer Cake in 2004...the movie was slick and Craig was excellent in it...there is no doubt that he is a very fine actor, but being a fine actor doesn't make a fine Bond. Again, one would comfort himself by saying it was about time a new look was introduced to the franchise and the actor in question Craig was definitely an odd candidate when announced but a dicey bet. All in all, I really felt that he did a decent job as James Bond but sadly somewhere has failed as he just can't encompass what Sean Connery had...being rugged, sophisticated, charming, suave and of course witty…all in one. There are many times when he looks charming and most definitely rugged all the time but he just doesn't make it as a great Bond...he does look like a mean killing machine but that's all there is!

Craig Daniel makes a decent Bond but he is certainly not the best Bond.

Agreed that the Bond movies had become quite jaded and hence the producers went against the grain…experimented and have given a much needed shot in the arm to the series…which is the good news…but the bad news is by doing so they have clearly lost direction. Casino Royale is way too buttered up and has very little Bond spirit. There are certain elements you just can't choose to ignore ...you can infuse modifications but not let go of the essential Bond ingredient: Fantasy! Because at the end of the day, the Character is Bond…James Bond not Jason Bourne!

Casino Royale is a good action movie but a disappointing Bond movie.
Best Bond film in years!
Nezodon13 December 2006
Really loved this film and felt that the story made it feel like a real James Bond film which has been lacking in the last few Bond films.

The story felt epic and very much like the Bond films of old which stood out as great stories and well constructed plot.

Daniel Graig was a thoroughly enjoyable and believable Bond and very much seemed close to the portrayal which we saw with Sean Connery which seemed fitting as the film felt very much like a Bond film of old which stood out from the crowd.

Of course i have to point out the continuity error of Judy Dench being M when she promoted way after Bond had received his 007 number, but it was so small a oversight especially with regard to a Bond movie which delivered a James Bond experience which i recognise from my childhood.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Alittle disaapointed, skyfal is better...you have to know pocker
hassanlu24 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Watched in april 2020" First of all the movies is not pg 13 as written is rated r.it contain nacked scene and love scene,,,,second there is almost 40 minutes of playing pocker and if you dont know it as iam you will dont undstanding anything in the game ,,,,,third many thing was unclear like mathias how he was traitor and who is with who,,fourh it was silly relationship between james bond and vesper it start with two dont like each other then suddenly they love each other .and after they fall in love both ,she betrayed him ,it was all nonsence story ,,dont start quick love story in film if you wanted to ended by this way
10/10
A.. a clue.. a clue.. all they needed was a clue...
shalimar-41 April 2007
A.. a clue.. a clue.. all they needed was a clue...

That clue was of course to get some superior writing.. and damn they came through in spades for this one.

For so many lame films labeled as Bond through the later 80's and 90's... then they got Brosnan (whom I always thought was a natural for this role).. only to forget about the most important part of any movie.

Good Writing!..

They wasted a lot with Pierce sadly.. concentrating on gadgets etc.. instead of a real plot and development that was actually realistic.

Well I'd say they scored a bulls eye for this one and Craig was above and beyond excellent for this role..

Now the only question is can they do it again? Only time will tell.

In the meantime I recommend this highly as an excellent film.. and I dare say better than the Departed (which was good but lacked in the end.)
10/10
Gave a perfect score, I rate all Bond films against this one.
marcosphoto7 March 2021
It's not a perfect film by any means, but I had to give it a perfect score because it's my favorite bond film and one of my top picks for films in general. I think Daniel is simply amazing in every respect. I find him to be an excellent actor, and does a lot of his own stunts which translates into a smoother movie as they don't have to cut/blend scenes to introduce a stuntman in between. In addition, I found the cinematography, all acting, screenplay - everything simply amazing. Sure, there are some areas that could have been improved on or toned down a little bit - but overall to me this is an example of a near top quality film with little to criticize. I could watch this movie every year and never ever get tired of it. I'm glad Daniel had decided to keep portraying Bond longer than he first planned.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Cool agent - boring plot
jacob-la-cour25 November 2006
Daniel Craig was an excellent choice for the character. A very good actor and with a cool brutal look. He fits the role perfectly, although a bit more sophistication would be beneficial.

But the plot - which is to stop some African war lords from getting USD 100 million of their own money back - is too simple, too ordinary and too boring for a Bond movie. The villain's plot should be Earth encompassing and psychotic like in the older movies. And even though it was nice with so little (no?) CGA, a Bond movie must have more gadgets and crazy situations - like M having an office in an Egyptian temple or a wrecked cruise ship - and car, boat or ski chases. Although it shouldn't get so stupid as in Die Another Day a bit more imagination in the next one would be nice!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
They don't make em like they used to!
andromeda515 November 2006
Let's start positively. The basic story is far more believable than the more recent Bond movies. Gone is the pretence of Britain being a major power with agents equipped with hi tech gadgetry and armed forces that span the globe. This Bond could be an agent of any minor power. On the downside you could drive one of the tank regiments that Britain no longer has through many sections of the plot. Then we come to perhaps the biggest disappointment - Bond himself. Bond is the character all guys like to identify with - he's tall dark and handsome. He looks equally at home dispensing with street thugs as he does in the world's classiest casino. Daniel Craig's Bond is pretty good at handling street thugs, but then he looks like one, even when he's in a DJ in a casino. Bond is irresistible to women. You'd have to be on a desert island for a very long time before you'd start getting hot and bothered over Daniel Craig. Bond always outsmarts his enemies. Craig's Bond screws up regularly. Apart from some of the stunts and fight sequences that beggar belief, this Bond is far more believable. By that I mean that now we know how incompetent most secret services are, one can believe this character. But is real life what one goes to the movies for? Full marks to the producers for dispensing with the laughable 'Britannia rules the waves' scenario. But can't we still have a Bond that the men can wish they were and women can wish they were with? And a story that's not full of holes would be nice too.
10/10
Hello there John McClane & Jason Bourne. My name is Bond, James Bond.
TwoThirdsMajority21 November 2006
This is a great Bond film. If i could summarize it in one word, this is the word:

A*W*E*S*O*M*E*!

This Bond film is a different Bond film. It has style and class, unlike the previous Bond films. It relies more on drama, love and emotions rather than Cheap CGI and cheesy one-liners.

I had become bored with Bond. I personally liked Pierce Brosnan as Bond. The movies he made were at best mediocre and predictable. There were some good moments but the Bond movie series was on life support after Die Another Day.

It wasn't actually a good Bond film, it was just so full of cringe worthy one liners and scifi gadgetry that the attempts by PB to be Bond were drowned out.

I had basically just gotten out of Bond. I stopped watching the movies, posting on message boards and was not paying any attention the news coming out of the Casino Royale production. I didn't even have any real opinion of Daniel Craig. *the guy from Layer Cake right... whatever.*

The pre-title sequence at first was just awesome. The film noir black & white sequences just fascinates me and is a very Usual Suspects. And to say this, i saw the original CR '54 TV production and also read thenovel, and i've got to say this: Martin Campbell did the right thing to pay a homage to the original B&W TV production as well as the pulp feel of the novel.

The Madagascar scene piqued my interest somewhat. No gadgets and a Bond, the first since Connery who actually looks like a guy who could kick someones ass . I was also liking the fact that Craig is a guy in his 30's. He looks as if he was doing Chuck Norris's roundhouse kick with some Connery intellectualism. He even shoots a Walther like a British Chow Yun Fat, sort of. However, The only problem I had with the scene was that it was so fast paced I was having a hard time digesting what was taking place.

M's first scene was brilliant and Judi Dench was really showing her amazing acting skills. They really were resetting Bond back to the beginning. My interest in the movie was improving by the minute.

When Bond went to Nassau I was now thoroughly enjoying the movie. I was getting the concept of what they were doing and Craig seemed to get this very well. Picking up Solange was a classic Bond type moment.

The Miami Airport scene was okay. Great spy work at the body works exhibit. You actually get a feeling that Bond is a spy. The fact that was now coming back to me over and over was how Bond was relying soley on himself and not some gadget to save the day and I could not be happier about this.

The elegance of Montenegro, along with Nassau was putting me in a great mood. When Eva Green is introduced into the movie as Vesper Lynd on the train I felt there was terrific chemistry. She is everything a Bond girl is suppose to be. Every bit smart, feminine and not a female Bond equivalent. The dialog on the train was refreshing.

The movie keeps getting better and better. The great chemistry between Bond and Vesper, the poker game where Bond loses his initial buy in and just sits there. Wow! You certainly don't expect this. I wasn't even sure he was going to win at this point where as in any other Bond movie it is an automatic.

the torture scene was just another testament to making Bond real. Even when Vesper is srceaming and Bond is about to lose his manhood he will not relent.

As Bond falls in love with Vesper and shows the human side you know great tragedy is coming but the scenes were well done. The final fight scene in Venice was not as good as I would have liked but far better than the goofy heroics or near superman/batman quality we've come to expect. Then, the final scene standing over White, neatly dressed with his famous tag line, then the monty norman theme and the credits role. The best finish of any Bond movie to date.

Bond had become just another action movie and the character, larger than life but without any depth. Now, Bond once again reigns supreme. By going back to the basics of who and what Bond is they have saved the series and made Bond the leader of the action gender once again.

4.5 out of 5.
8/10
A proper tough guy hero in James Bond
maatmouse-110 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the past, I have enjoyed James Bond movies simply because they had all the ingredients of a stylish action movie, namely, a tough guy who always wins, several beautiful women, lots of action and a bad guy who always gets his commeuppance. This James Bond movie is no exception even although the 'bad guy' is never really who you think it is.

Daniel Craig was always a natural choice for Bond. Critics say his blonde hair and blue eyes completely ruled him out but his whole tough guy with a nice sense of humour makes him an easy choice for the producers to consider. He is not too hard a nut to crack, like Sean Connery or too smarmy like Roger Moore. He is more the Bond of the 21st century, a man's man who enjoys the company of women.

The action scenes do not disappoint. There is a thrilling scaffolding and building site chase in the first section of the movie which leaves you wondering quite how they did it and later on, even during the card game sequences there is some action when Bond tackles the men behind Le Chiffre's game. There are also the cars; a new Ford Mondeo and, of course, an Aston Martin. Where would Bond be without his British sports car and all its useful glove compartment gear? The ladies are beautiful, of course. Eva Green has better stuff to say in this film and a well fleshed out role, although, for my money, she still wears too much make up. And of course, there is Judi Dench as 'M' who never allows her real feelings for Bond and his work get in the way of a good 'telling off'. Judi is excellent as always, although I wish they would give her more to do.

The locations are everything you want in a Bond movie. Sunny, fascinating and dangerous. There is the Bahamas, Montenegro and Venice. Quite how they did the Venetian house destruction scene amazed me! All in all, don't worry too much about following the plot but enjoy the action, the ladies and above all THE MAN. Bond is really back and better than ever.
9/10
More like the old Bond films
iain_third20 November 2006
I have found all the Dalton and Brosnan Bond movies to be pretty poor compared to the earlier films, mainly due to over-emphasis on gadgets, action and special effects left the plots and character development by the wayside. I can't actually name or describe any bond baddies from these films, even though I have watched many of them a number of times. They just don't really stand out.

The new film kept an element of excitement going, with some good action, but there was a lot more depth, and the characters were far better developed. I found the film most comparable with the older Sean Connery films. Like the older Connery films, and I think one of the key reasons for its similarity, Ian Flemmings book has had a strong influence on the script, unlike many of the later films where the only similarity with the book was the name, and the name of the villain.

Daniel Craig makes a very good Bond, capturing the personality perfectly, and other roles in the film are all well cast.

As a big fan of the Bond genre this film has re-captivated my interest, which was waning after the Dalton and Brosnan films.
10/10
Bond to end all Bonds
lkemilai26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Broccoli family have really done it: they gave us Ian Fleming's Bond. My first touch to Bonds came from reading Fleming's books as a kid, and they were full of cold-n-naked, cartilage-crushing, verge-of-dying agony. So I've had real problems with post-Connery Bond movies. At last I go to movies to see Bond and I get Bond, not Mandrake. Now my soul is in rest and no past sins of Broccolis will be remembered. Anybody who likes his Bond being the unreal male Barbie(tm) who probably doesn't go to toilet, forget that this movie was ever made. It is not for you. If you like your Bond taking a beating, bleeding, strangling people 'til they sh** their pants and changing his clothes to go play cards, go ahead and buy the ticket and pre-order the special edition DVD; Bond Faery has heard you nightly sobs and your wishes have been granted.
5/10
I chalk it up to birth pains
sean-wiebersch5 January 2007
I can agree with many of opinions and points raised by the angry/disappointed fans. I have loved James since I was a kid and he was missing from this film until the very end. (Things might have been different if the introduction had been made around minute 85 instead of around minute 140)

I must say however that I could see, with a bit of effort, the intentions and desires of the Broccoli's and the emergence of the character I have known and loved for years.

I believe, they are trying to reinvent/reinvigorate the franchise (although it seemed at a high with Pierce and Halle) while offering some congruence to the concept of JAMES BOND.

I must say they did not do a great job.

I am looking forward to the next film with great anticipation and faith that the birthing process is behind us.
Amazing.
bondsapartment22 April 2021
Daniel Craig starts his time as Bond off with a band. Potentially the best film in the franchise.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An exceptional action film, and perhaps even a modern classic
TheUnseenMovieLover22 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I wasn't sure what to expect from Casino Royale. I am not a particular fan of the James Bond films, but this film was gathering serious hype, mostly on the basis of Daniel Craig's performance. I went to see it on my birthday, which made me hope for the best. Thankfully, this film blew me away. Based on the other films in the series which I had seen, I wasn't at all prepared for the level of intelligence, spectacularly gritty action and sheer brilliance which is on display in this film. It was one of the greatest delights of 2006.

This adventure kicks off with James Bond (Craig) at the beginning of his time as a double "0" agent. He is unpredictable, deadly and just as likely to blow up a building when tasked with capturing a dangerous individual. No wonder he makes his boss M (Judi Dench) edgy.

Bond's first assignment as 007 puts him on the trail of Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson), a banker to the world's terrorists. After Bond foils one of Le Chiffre's plans, Le Chiffre sets up a card game in order to win back the money that he has lost. Bond is entered into the game in an attempt to stop Le Chiffre from winning, and is joined by treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), who is tasked with keeping an eye on both Bond and the money that he needs for the game. While sparks begin to fly between Bond and Vesper, they realise that Le Chiffre will not lose without a fight...

One of the best sequences in the film is the opening. Whilst Bond has a calm, calculated conversation with a traitor whom he is about to kill, the intensely escalating discussion is terrifically inter-cut with a tremendously realistic and pulse-raising bathroom punch-up, which is brutal to watch. It is one of the best moments in the film because from the word go, I knew that I was in for something special, complex, realistic and stylishly exciting, which was exactly what I received.

Craig's performance certainly deserved the hype. Several Bond fans and naysayers were attacking him from all sides, and instead of giving in and failing miserably, he leaves his enemies choking in his dust. This is the first time that I have felt close to Bond, the first time that I have felt that I might actually spot him on the street. Craig brilliantly captures the gritty and emotional battle raging within Bond, as well as giving him a welcome yet nuanced sense of humour.

His bickering with the excellent Eva Green's Vesper Lynd is one particular delight, both showing off their superbly forked tongues and revealing genuinely affecting emotions. Craig's performance is beautiful, and thoroughly drew me into the film. If it was up to me, he should have at least got an Oscar nomination. On top of everything else, he is incredibly fit and physically able, as proved by the film's breath-taking free-running chase.

The film's action shot past all of my expectations. Whether Bond is chasing a bomber intent on blowing up a new jet plane at Miami airport or chasing a free-running bomber through a construction site in Madagascar, the action set pieces are stunningly choreographed, exceptionally acted and terrifically suspenseful.

The acting is also top-notch. Judi Dench is superbly old-fashioned and lends both humanity and stern humour to her role of M, whilst Mads Mikkelson makes a superbly chilling and surprisingly human villain. Giancarlo Giannini as Bond's contact Mathis and Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leitor (who becomes one of Bond's closest associates) pop up in roles full of sophisticated charm and style, whilst Eva Green gives heart and soul to the role of Vesper Lynd, something which I have never seen from a romantic interest in a Bond film.

One of the best aspects of the film is the script. Paul Haggis is tremendously good at writing witty, smart and emotional dialogue, and his dialogue is spot-on, eliciting huge laughs whilst smoothly getting under the skin of the characters. I am now a huge fan of his, and await his new projects with great anticipation.

The direction is perfect. Martin Campbell (director of the brilliant Mask of Zorro and GoldenEye) paces everything exceptionally well. All scenes go on for as long as necessary, giving us the sense of being on a extremely entertaining roller-coaster ride. Campbell also understands the term "back to basics" and allows characters room to breathe, whilst giving the action a welcome sense of danger and suspense.

The locations for the film are fantastic, but there aren't too many as to lead to confusion. There is also some great application of stunt work and visual effects, most notably in the literally ground-breaking finale.

I highly recommend this film for all film fans. It is a sensationally orchestrated action feast, and packs enough human emotion to make it a classic example of a brilliant action movie done right. Bring on the sequel!
Fun
breadandhammers18 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fun movie, though I feel like the Daniel Craig series takes itself too seriously sometimes. This is certainly the start of it. The action scenes were great of course.
8/10
Great reboot of a classic franchise
charchuk15 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For sure one of the best Bonds and one of the most exciting action movies ever made. The Madagascar chase in particular was thrilling, but all of the action sequences were extremely well-choreographed and well-edited, so that the audience doesn't get lost, as can be the case with many modern fight scenes. The hand-to-hand fighting is much more exciting than the typical shoot-em-up gunfights. I didn't mind the doing away with many of the 007 conventions, as I understood that this is a reboot, and Bond hasn't become Bond truly yet. Furthermore, the film didn't completely reinvent the Bond franchise, it just toned down the formula a bit. All of this makes it a more realistic - but still stylized - and thrilling action flick.

I found the pacing was off sporadically throughout this, though, especially at the end, with the numerous false endings. Pretty much everything after the torture scene felt off; it didn't really drag, but it didn't jive with the rest of the film. That said, the aforementioned action scenes and the surprisingly exciting poker scenes more than made up for it. The villain's death was quite sudden and somewhat anti-climatic, but the final twist was genuinely surprising and led up to a great finish. The dialogue was quite sharp throughout - Bond's quips were top notch, and the banter between him and Vesper was entertaining - and the story was interesting, though there were a bit too many bad guys. Still, a solid screenplay.

The acting was pretty good, with Daniel Craig making a great case for the top Bond. He'll have to do a couple more films before being accurately compared against the others, but he was fantastic in this. Not quite as suave, but both comedic and dramatic. I still think Connery was better, but Craig was pretty damn good. Eva Green was a great Bond girl, but wasn't as hot as some of the others. For some reason, she looked much better without any makeup on. And the villain was pretty good in his limited role.

So, overall, a great reboot for the Bond franchise, akin to Batman Begins. While it's not quite as good as that was, it's still a thoroughly exciting and thrilling action flick, with great performances and a solid story. There were some pacing issues, but I suppose that comes with being the introductory film to a new franchise. I have confidence the next one will be even better, just as From Russia With Love was to Dr. No.
6/10
Daniel Craig is no Bond
FriendlyBear18 March 2007
The actual movie is alright. The storyline, dialogue, the cast, acting, locations etc is alright. It's just that Daniel Craig is no Bond. He had no charisma, style, flair, he seemed rather dull and stale throughout the movie and showed no signs to make even think this is Bond and I've seen all the Bond movies. There wasn't much chemistry with the women. It really seems like he had no interest in playing Bond but only did it because Bond has become a legendary status in the film world and if somebody remembers you, it will be from a Bond film.

The other problem with this film is that it does not feel like a Bond film. There is a pure distinction between Bond films and general action film. Casino Royale is a general action film and if they changed the name "James Bond" in this film to say Scott Becker or something, you wouldn't even have the slightest clue or idea that this film can be a Bond film.

A lot of people who are praising this movie are saying that this film goes back to the 60s Bond. I disagree, the 60s Bond are likable and lovable.

I like Daniel Craig and I do think he's a decent actor however, I have a hard time time seeing him as Bond. Daniel Craig had 2 hours and a half of my time to convince me that he is Bond. That did not happen. He will be in the next 2 Bond movies so he'll have his chance to convince me then.

I do like the dark and gritty style of this film but I think I would have liked the movie way more than I do now if they had somebody else play Bond. I have so many other things to say but then this would get too long.
10/10
Looks Like Bonds 1 - 20 Were Just Practice Runs
MetalMiike19 November 2006
I always had a vague feeling of disappointment while watching Bond films. True, I love them but at the back of my head there was always something wrong. Now I know what it is.

I was desperate for the makers to take what they were doing seriously. Well, now they have. In Casino Royale we are presented with a Bond who not only bleeds, not only gets genuinely hurt but at times is in serious danger of getting killed. Actually death probably looked pretty attractive to him at one point, considering what the villain was doing to him at the time. But aside from that, the big question is, "is Daniel Craig any good?". Well, here I have to be very, very cautious indeed as we are dealing with a Retcon (Reboot is rather inaccurate) and therefore the character is altered to fit Fleming's vision rather than anything we have seen before. In other words, I far prefer this version of Bond to the previous cinematic incarnation, collectively embodied by Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. Rather than "Bond 21" this is more "Bond 1b" and it almost makes me wish I didn't have to put up up with the last 20. Yes; it is that good.

In essence, the anti-Craigs were probably more anti-ditch-everything-out-the-window-and-start-again than anything else but were could the series have gone after Die Another Day? The bin probably. Thank God we don't have to suspend our disbelief anymore and in a world were terrorists really are slamming planes into international landmarks, Bond has finally caught up. The violence, pain and suffering is real and dirty (one MI6 agent is seen restraining himself from vomiting on seeing a dead body at one point). No room have we for the frivolities of Moore or Brosnan; we just do not live in a frivolous world anymore.
6/10
Great first half - Boring second half!
ashvindx-117 February 2007
I was really keen to watch this new Bond movie after so many years. While the first half was very enticing in terms of plot, action, suspense and Bond-like features, the second half left me waiting for something good to happen. It isn't enticing enough at all in the Casino Royale. There are a few things that'll keep you to your seats but it's missing the feeling that Bond is simply the best agent out there. This is supposed to be a Bond movie, where 007 saves the world? Where's that element?? Agreed that it's his first mission. Still... And the final climax is too much like any-other spy movie. Just compare this movie with the previous one! Still it's a great performance. Daniel Craig is going to hold long as James Bond.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent
MovieMen200510 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie is excellent for so many reasons. First, Daniel Craig. I was a bit skeptical but he sold me. I haven't seen a Bond that physical since Sean Connery and he wears a tux perfectly. Second, the filmmakers made the public fully aware that this would be a completely new approach to Bond because the material was new. The 50 year old story was never adapted and shows us Bond before he becomes the Bond that we've known for 40 years. To all the people griping at all the changes, you really weren't paying attention to all the press releases. They made it quite clear that most of the bond trademarks would be gone and, may I say, experimentally, it worked beautifully. The filmmakers made a bold statement to give us Bond at the beginning of his career, working his first assignment as "OO" and his metamorphosis as an agent. The only Bond trademarks we get are a tux, female boss M and his ordering a vodka martini, shaken not stirred, which, I must admit incited a bit of giddiness in me. Craig was perfect. I haven't seen a Bond look that good in a tux since Pierce in Goldeneye. Now, physically, Craig blows them all out of the water. After the opening and Bond had achieved OO status, he engages in a foot chase at a construction site that takes your breath away. You never saw Brosnan or Dalton do this stuff. What's more is that for most of the sequence, it's Craig, not a stunt double, handling the scene and you haven't seen Bond move like this in a long time. Daniel Craig and the filmmakers knew what we wanted to see and gave it to us. Aside from no Q and not hearing the classic line,"Bond, James Bond" until the end, Casino Royale is better than both of Dalton's, half of Brosnan's and some of Moore's without a doubt. Daniel Craig, you should be proud.
10/10
The best Bond and Bond film ever
GreatnessequalsNicole25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is my favourite Bond film and I do believe it to be one of the best ever made. The reason lies behind one man: Daniel Craig. Craig gives an absolutely compelling and entirely believable performance as a Bond who is bruised and not quite happy with killing people.

The opening sequence of the film is fantastic as it draws you in as it throws you into the title credits. Chris Cornell's song is perfect as it suits Craig's style. Eva Green is also cast perfectly as Vesper Lynd and Craig and Green's on screen chemistry is fantastic. The scene where Bond comes to comfort Vesper in the shower is one my favourite in the film as the audience is left with a feeling of sadness yet an overwhelming sense of how Craig's Bond is broken himself and how he is comforting and loving. Craig at the end of the film as he realises Vesper is dead gives an entirely believable portrayal of Bond's inconsolable grief. Showing his astounding ability as an actor. The poker scenes are also great in the film as they do raise tension with the audience as do the perfect action sequences.

A great film, definitely one I will never forget.
9/10
This Bond BLEEDS- move over Sean Connery!!! Major thumbs up!
dilbertsuperman14 December 2006
Sean Connery WAS the only Bond. This man is an accurate and stunning representation of the early Bond- very much in line with the original BOOK - gasp he said book- those things make my head hurt!!- but updated for this century as well.

The leading lady, while far from sumptuous at the Bond Girl level of her predecessors is still interestingly hot in her own way. Nice eyes, strange boobs.

The obsession with strange unflattering boobs continues with her counterpart on the villain side, a stunning Arabic looking hottie with a really lame dress that destroys her sexuality continually.

Ah yes- the plot.. Well- this is an early 007 when he has just started, he's not as sure of himself, and sometimes a murder is rather prolonged and emotional because of his inexperience in the spycraft.

This movie is one of the most realistic spy movies I have seen in that it forces the character to take advantage of his surroundings, improvise, lie freely, and coldly socially engineer when necessary- all in all, a very sexy movie. He often scrapes by with barely making it through a situation.

This Bond occasionally bleeds and fails and then comes back meaner than any Bond you have ever seen. When this guy plays for real RUN!! Top Marks go to not being too Hollywood, and being brave enough to play it like this with Bond and still come out shining like the sun. Everything in this movie feels real and tense and deadly like sleeping in the same sleeping bag as a cobra.

Highly recommended.

PLOT: A high stakes game of hold-um for 10 million is the climax of a number of different deadly males colliding in a game of spy vs afrikan arms dealers in a situation where no one is to be trusted and every moment could be your last.
9/10
A Bond for a new generation
xander3424 November 2006
After a series of campy films and a four-year hiatus, James Bond is back. In Casino Royale, the 21st official Bond film, Daniel Craig steps up as the sixth Bond, giving the best portrayal of 007 to date. Craig makes the role his own. His believable interpretation is gritty, down to earth, and vulnerable, while maintaining Bond's classic sharp wit and arrogance.

After a black-and-white introduction where Bond earns his first two kills and reaches double-0 status, the classic gun barrel opening sequence begins, and the audience is sold. However, this Bond is neither suave nor polished. He does not wink, and when he fights, he bleeds. He is young, raw, quick and muscular.

Casino Royale was the first Bond book written by Ian Fleming. However, the film is not a prequel, like Batman Begins. It's set in contemporary times, and is not meant to connect with the previous 20 films. During the suspenseful casino sequences, the popular Texas Hold 'Em is played instead of the novel's baccarat.

Director Martin Campbell, who also helmed GoldenEye, arguably the best Bond film starring Pierce Brosnan, proves his talent of inspiring strong performances, even without a distinctive style. The screenplay credit is given to three individuals: Robert Wade, Neal Purvis and Paul Haggis.

Wade and Purvis co-wrote the last two Bond scripts, which were quite inferior in comparison to Casino Royale's wonderful script. Therefore, it's safe to say that the talents of Oscar-winner Haggis added the right element.

Eva Green is unlike any other Bond girl. She doesn't dress elegantly unless she has to. She doesn't show any inclination to seduce Bond. She even displays a layered personality. And he actually gets to know her. Also in the cast is Judi Dench, reprising her role as M, and Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, a very peculiar bond villain who has a dead eye that weeps blood.

The only complaint one could have for Casino Royale is the length. After a fast-paced, roller-coaster ride of a movie, the films film's conclusion feels bloated, and will confuse most viewers.

Nonetheless, Casino Royale should maintain Bond's old audience, and grasp a new one. The film is exactly the fresh start that the James Bond franchise needed. It shows us Bond's early mistakes and immaturity, so as the series goes on we'll understand how and why he becomes the wise, suave, womanizing and deadly Bond we all know.
9/10
The best Bond film since "Goldfinger"
MovieWes28 November 2006
I don't know whether or not I consider myself a fan of the James Bond series or not. I've enjoyed many of the films, especially the ones starring Sean Connery, but I've felt that the 007 franchise has tasted a little bit stale for the past 25 years or so. To be honest, the last Bond movie that I actually enjoyed was "Goldeneye", and before that I'd probably have to go all the way back to "For Your Eyes Only" in order to name a quality Bond film.

So imagine my surprise when I saw "Casino Royale" last weekend. Not only is it the first Bond movie that I've actually liked in the last 11 years, but even surpasses some of the Bond movies starring Sean Connery. It's got all of the elements that made the early Bond films classics and much of the action to satisfy the action/blockbuster aficionados. The filmmakers were really shooting for the fence on this one, and the end result is the best James Bond film since "Goldfinger." Much of the credit has to go to the new Bond, Daniel Craig, who gives the best performance since Sean Connery (and perhaps the most nuanced performance of the entire 21-film series). His Bond is a much different Bond than what audiences are used to. On the one hand, he's cunning, he's brutal, and he's ruthless. On the other, he's charming, he's suave, and he's sleek. Simply put, Craig's Bond is a cross between Steve McQueen and Cary Grant.

While "Casino Royale" sheds many of the staples of the Bond series that have bogged the series down lately (gone are the high-tech Q-gadgets and the ridiculous stunts), it retains the right elements that have made the Bond franchise so enduring for the past 44 years. It's still got the gorgeous Bond girls (and Eva Green is one of the most memorable of the entire series), Bond still drives an Aston Marton, and the martinis are still ordered "shaken, not stirred." It also gets injected with a good dose of reality, which is exactly what the franchise needed after such asinine things as invisible cars, DNA replacement, etc.

In conclusion, "Casino Royale" is well worth the admission price. Even if you're not a Bond fan or a newcomer to the series, there's something for everyone here. It's an extremely entertaining and fun movie, and I, for one, can definitely think of worse ways to spend an evening. After seeing what the filmmakers were able to pull off with "Casino Royale," the words "James Bond will return" have never sounded so sweet.
9/10
Bond is back!
bangban_tribudiman20 November 2006
With the days of Pierce Brosnans charming and efficient Bond gone and slightly boring we needed a new Bond with new ideas. We needed a new movie with new bad guys not based on world domination. Enter Daniel Craig and the inspirational director Martin Campbel bringer of Goldeneye.

Bond not only improves but becomes spectacular. With a reasonably serious script bort to earth by a lot of extremely well timed comedic comments from Mr Bond himself. Daniel moulds into the suit of 007 immediately with a brilliant show of confidence. His humour is well timed his action scenes are more realistic with Mr Bond not coming off best in all his fights and leaving cut and bruised rather than neat and tidy which we have recently been known Bond doing.

One of the main controversy points is the absence of either Q or the newly formed R. The absence of gadgets make the movie far more realistic with the odd piece of machinery perhaps resembling Q department but there is definitely no invisible car. The poker game perhaps drawn out but is extremely exciting and made well with problems facing the players and meetings between Bond and up coming friends.

This is Bond like you've never seen him before all thumbs up 10/10 Bond will be back and Craig must stay
8/10
Bond uses a cell phone just like yours instead of lighting cigarettes with Q's mini-flamethrower
Oceans178 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Among the best Bonds, thanks to Martin Campbell's expert direction and Daniel Craig effortlessly fitting in the wardrobe of his predecessors.

Besides the good balance between realism and acrobatic action, this Bond succeeds in avoiding a frequent mistake of the previous ones: the excess of gadgetry, now wisely turned into abundance of multimedia technology that we are all familiar with (well, the embellishments in the geographic search were very cool but perhaps a little too much).

Less gadgetry means less Q or R (none is seen in this film) and, thankfully enough, more M played by that wonderful and distinguished actress, Judi Dench, whose presence alone puts any film in the top class.

Good chemistry (more believable than usual) between Craig and extremely beautiful Eva Green, who delivers a multi-layered performance much above the usual needs of Bond films but very welcome in this one.

Plus an excellent villain and spectacular highlights that don't diminish the rest of the film: in fact, there is a good amount of intrigue that does not need to be fueled by gunshots but is sustained by sheer interest and anticipation, as in the best suspense films.

8 out of 10 for the film, 10 out of 10 for the cast (and please, bring back the villains that survived: Mathis, Mr. White...) I had never been so satisfied to read in the end credits that "James Bond will return".
The new and improved Bond
Cool-Lion145 October 2018
After some so-so James Bond films of the 1990s, this came along. I wasn't sure if there'd be a good James Bond after Brosnan, Dalton and Moore, but this was a pleasant surprise. We get the origins of our favorite super-spy and how he got where he is now. Plus, Judi Dench came back as M. If you ask me, she is one of the better folks playing M in James Bond. The others didn't feel that memorable. The men playing M, I meant. This movie also stayed true to Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel of the same name. I'd read the novel back in 2003 and I remember various scenes from the book that got translated onto the big screen. Plus, we know that there'll be more from both movie and book.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best Bond films to ever be made.
MrJRGO7 June 2020
'Casino Royale' sees James Bond (Daniel Craig) acquire his 007 status before racing around the world to stop an immoral banker, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson), who helps to fund world terrorists, and in particularl, a mysterious new organization. Le Chiffre has lost a huge sum of money on the stock market after Bond foils a plot to blow up an airplane in Miami. Needing to raise funds quickly, he decides to hold a very high stakes Poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. 'M' sends 007, who is accompanied by accountant Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), to participate in the game, to stop Le Chiffre and to find out more about this new menacing, secret organization.

I think it's important that we give the making of 'Casino Royale' some context for those who weren't around at the time and for those who've forgotten everything that surrounded the making of the film in 2006. Many people had not been happy with the direction the Bond films had been going in for some years. The last two films in particular, 'The World Is Not Enough' and 'Die Another Day', were seen to be two of the worst. The arrival of Matt Damon's Jason Bourne in 2002, and the follow up in 2004, had also heaped pressure on to the Bond franchise with a fresher, more realistic action orientated superspy, not reliant on CGI, making the latest Bond offerings look banal as well as rivalling him at the box office. Bond had become a parody of himself and Bourne looked like a natural successor.

The decision was taken to reboot the series by taking James Bond back to basics with a new actor in the role of the iconic spy. 'Casino Royale' had been the first Bond book published in 1952 and the only one of the series not yet to have a film made about it (the David Niven 1967 spoof doesn't count).

So we arrive at the movie itself which was to be Daniel Craig's inaugural film as James Bond. It was quite possibly the most anticipated Bond movie of all time as there had been a mixed reaction to the casting of Craig, a relative unknown, as 007 a year earlier. A war of opposing sentiments had erupted on-line with two websites, CraignotBond and CraigisBond, set up to do battle after his announcement as the urbane British spy. The online war raged right up until 'Casino Royale' was released in cinemas November 2006, with the pro-Craig side emerging victorious as critical acclaim and widespread audience approval of 'Casino Royale' finally quashed all rebellion against Barbara Broccoli's interesting choice for protagonist.

Whether any of this affected the making of the movie or not, the fact is that Casino Royale is a terrific film, with an excellent James Bond at the head of a fantastic cast reading from a quality script, with fantastic direction and production, and one of the best Bond themes in Chris Cornell's 'You Know My Name'. Here we see Bond in the raw, earning his 007 status, allowing his ego to take control, making mistakes but still saving the day as only James Bond can. Don't worry, this is very much James Bond in a James Bond movie but one with a subtle difference.

The film's running time at nearly two and a half hours is just right as the time whizzes by. At no point do you find yourself looking at the clock as you're far too absorbed in this unique Bond story, one that really can stand alone from the rest of the series. The film changes pace on numerous occasions and is happy to flick back and forth between the action scenes, the tension at the poker game and the more tender moments with Vesper Lynd without losing the viewer. It is all blended together perfectly. 'Casino Royale' is also a film that has matured well over the past fourteen years and plays like it could have been made in the last twelve months.

A big well done to Daniel Craig as well. The pressure of being James Bond, let alone for the first time and amidst so much online discussion, must have weighed heavily on him and yet he handles the role with aplomb. In 'Casino Royale', Craig shows that he can be both the blunt instrument and the charismatic lover that we expect of James Bond. His final line in the film is so well delivered and sums up his overall performance. It was an auspicious start for Daniel Craig as James Bond and even though 'Quantum of Solace' wasn't the follow up that most hoped for, his exceptional performance in 'Casino Royale' wasn't a one off.
9/10
One of the best Bond movies period.
silvern-9284711 February 2019
This Bond movie has it all a new Bond character and Daniel Craig who is exactly what we needed in a new Bond character rustic rough around the average unpredictable willing to take chances savagely subtle with an attack method somewhere between a chainsaw and a scalpel depending on the situation and what is deemed appropriate. Bond should be a badass and he is in this movie. The movie has an interesting plot the time to we're halfway through the movie they've accomplished so much that it could be a movie onto itself and then the other half of the movie is yet itself another movie so you get a two-in-one special here that's how thickly the plot line is laid the movie has everything developed characters that you are invested in and that are memorable relationships that are nuanced and also developed the Clashing of egos Titans Great Guns great cars heroics and romanticism it's edgy yeah it's beautiful it's classy yet blunt it's exactly what a Bond movie should be and I wish they would make more like this
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A new and glorious beginning
Eightythreeyearoldguy14 March 2007
I'm not ready to say this is the best ever Bond movie. I need to see this and GOLDFINGER again.

This is thoroughly satisfying though, and I hope future ones will take up from here. As a matter of fact, I could even go with remakes of the original Fleming novels taken in succession.

I was immediately hooked by the black-and-white film noir preamble. And then the titles...all I can say is W O W ! After that, the balance between wild and surprisingly realistic action scenes and non-action scenes were just right...and I'm with the reviewer who says that the poker game was as riveting as any of the action scenes..really, more so.

I would've given this a 10 rather than 9 if it weren't for the way much of the last half hour drug and had me saying "C'mon, lets get on with it." However, I can appreciate why that sequence was done and made as long as it was.

And the conclusion with the last line of the movie followed by, at last, loved and familiar theme music that had me sitting through the credits just to hear it.

I'm one of those who eventually gave up on the Bond movies but this one has me back and back to stay if they keep it up as they did in this.

An absolute must-see that I recommend even to those who don't consider themselves James Bond fans.
2/10
Lame Bond
johncranberry-6729214 February 2020
Just a pointless action movie. When I was growing up Sean and Roger had great writers and memorable villains and amazing sequences. This movie was pointless and forgettable. I will always have my Bond films thank god.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great start to Daniel Craig's career
vintagegal31 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig starts his James Bond career with Casino Royale, where he is in a battle with a terrorist leader. The beginning and ending scenes were both amazing, including a chase with a super-fast, athletic prisoner, and exploding a prison to escape from it.

He does whatever he could to get a better idea about this person. From going into a random hotel and checking their security cameras, alone, without any permission, to hacking a computer of the super high-level person who is the leader of M16. This is a great start to Daniel Craig's hopefully long career in the James Bond business. He made a great impression with his acting skills in this movie.
10/10
Meet James Bond Secret agent 007 for the first time.
bluesman-2010 January 2007
I recently saw Casino Royale and walked away very very impressed. I have been a big Bond fan since at least the sixth grade and read all the Fleming Bond novels by grade eight. I always saw Sean Connery in my minds eye as Bond. But Daniel Craig did something very impressive he pulled it off. He is Fleming's James Bond brought to life a cold arrogant assassin who works for the government. Craig's performance was superb he is James Bond. Now the movie took liberties with the book which I recently re read but I was so surprised by the fact that while they made changes to the story they kept the flavor of the book they kept it gritty and action packed. Did this movie keep my attention YES. Will I see it again Yes am I a fan of the Daniel Craig James Bond Yes. Let's hope the next few Bond's he makes are as good as this one or if not better.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Finally!!!!.....a real, modern, Bond movie.
ericjams7 December 2006
This review is catered toward anyone who either grew up watching Connery and Moore play James Bond in the theaters, or if you are like me watching as a 6 year-old boy TBS marathons that would often have trifectas such as, A Spy Who Loved Me, ThunderBall, and From Russia With Love all on during the same day.

I didn't mind Brosnan as Bond, I minded the scripts, the often ridiculous plot lines, and the blatantly coordinated explosions. I minded the lack of any real emotion in any of the roles, whether they were Brosnan his enemies or his women.

Thus, I walked into Casino Royale expecting more of the same. Boy was I pleasantly surprised. For starters, Daniel Craig, with all the hoopla about a "blond Bond" delivers a subdued and concentrated performance similar to some of Connery's earliest work in Dr. No or GoldFinger. I mean even Connery worked more juvenile smiles or quircky one liners into those scripts then Craig is given in Royale. His face is stoic and at all times impressionless, as if he is playing poker at all times. I like this. He singlehandedly brought seriousness back to the "Bond" character.

Then, there is the script. At first a standard mission to foil terrorist via a high stakes poker game, the layers of this movie are first very simply built up. Good guy, bad guy, love interest, and the impossible duality between falling in love and working for the British Secret Service. Slowly these layers are peeled away, one supposed ending, leads to another, which leads to another. And all along, the plot line is not completely unfathomable like some of the past decades Bonds. Why not? Because the plot lines are driven by human emotions, by deceit and deception, not by crazy villains with incomprehendable plots.

Green and Craig are great. The screenplay is the best since arguably, GoldenEye or to take it back even further, For Your Eyes Only. For Bond fans, GO SEE THIS MOVIE....for people not familiar with Bond, this would be a good start.
8/10
Did we really need another "Bond"?
mmunier9 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I enjoyed the event very much, but why Bond? I have the impression that the producer felt the same too... ****SPOILER****! "Stired or shaken?" Frankly my... sorry he did not say that - but he replied "I couldn't care less". ****End of Spoiler**** Well done! - James Bond like many I guess, for me will always be S. Connery then P Brosman would be my closest resurrection of it. Haven't we over done it yet? I really feel the movie was good enough in its own right without the need to be a James Bond movie, mind you I enjoyed the music theme at the end and join those who felt we could have heard a little more of it! But I missed the JB style that we nearly got to enjoy a little before the villain destroy is tailored suit. (oh no another spoiler!) Oh well I guess for some "it's got to be Bond"!
7/10
Back in black.
come2whereimfrom22 November 2006
So it comes to me now to review the new Bond film, but before we go any further let me first say that Daniel Craig is a great bond and dare I say probably the best and closest to the one imagined in the books by Ian Flemming all those years ago. So to the movie, well its OK, it certainly the best since Golden Eye but like all this years big films it falls a little flat. Craig is let down by the script as is Judy Dench who returns as M and apart from the odd one liner from Bond it feels very bland. The director treats us to a few amazing set pieces at the start (just like Superman did) but once they are out of the way it gets a little boring, especially from the moment we arrive at Casino Royale for the poker game, I for one know nothing about poker and even though I could see that they were trying to add an element of suspense to it I felt it dragged on too long, something that was not necessary in a film that is two and half hours long anyway. Gone are the gadgets and the bumbling Q and in are the fisticuffs, I have to admit the realism was great as bonds hands got progressively more bruised with the more punches he threw, there was no Rambo style fights here, when he was hurt he was hurt and it showed. Gone too it seems are the plethora of girls usually encountered by Bond in the course of his service to queen and country, the filmmakers have taken it down the George Lazenby route to the point where Bond hands in his notice to be with Eva Green's Vespa Lynd and to sail off to Venice full of wild abandon. Here we are treated to a strange copy of 'Don't Look Now' as Vespa runs through the back alleys in a bright red dress which surely can't be coincidence? The makers of the film set out to reinvent the saga and take Bond back to basics, this to a certain degree they have achieved, but keeping elements such as all of Bonds foes having to have a minor ailment isn't called for and in Casino Royale its no different as Le Chiffe has asthma and a false eye that weeps blood. For the ultimate reinvention what Bond really needs is a good story and a better script, a credible enemy and some well thought out action (the free running was great but are we just jumping on the bandwagon?) A little too long and a little flat in places, Bond is definitely back lets just see where it goes from here because for all intent and purpose Casino Royale is heading the right way its just not quite there yet. His name is Bond, James Bond, stone cold killer and double hard b*stard and on the way to becoming a rising star across the world again, Jack Bauer shouldn't hang his gun up just yet but maybe he should watch his back.
7/10
Bond gets violent again
ExpendableMan23 December 2006
At the time of writing this, Casino Royale is already a triumph. It's been a major box office success across the globe, silenced all of Daniel Craig's naysayers and as hundreds of critics have said, "returned the series to its roots." But all hype aside, is it any good? The answer is a resounding, definitive and triumphant sort of. It has much to recommend it and is certainly the best Bond film since Goldeneye, but it's not without its flaws. Given how silly the franchise became with Die Another Day however, its refreshing to see the old familiar Spy in a far more satisfying adventure.

Craig you see is a much more rough and tumble Bond than we've seen of late. Throughout the course of the movie, he is more than willing to let his fists do the talking and gets involved in a number of bone crunching rucks. At one point he is captured and tortured violently, at another he is poisoned and nearly dies, he sweats, he bleeds and come the climax, he is covered in bruises and most likely carries several scars from his encounters. In short, Craig makes Bond look like less of an indestructible charm machine and reminds us all just how painful the job really is. What's more, he's given some utterly fantastic action sequences to get grim and gritty in. The first half hour of the movie is a roller-coaster of an introduction with Bond pursuing a African Parkour expert across a city before winding up at an embassy filled with gunmen who would be considerably better at their jobs if they'd included lessons in marksmanship and not standing next to pressurised air tanks in their training schedules. The climactic gun battle in a collapsing Venice tower is also great, with Craig pummelling his foes with fists, knives, electric cables and even a nail gun with ruthless abandon.

But Bond is only ever as good as his enemies are evil and given that chronologically speaking, this is his first ever mission it stands to reason that some delightfully slimy little reptile should come crawling out of the woodwork to apply for the job. That man is Le Chiffre (played by the brilliantly named Mads Mikkelson), a corrupt asthmatic banker and mathematical genius who is addicted to gambling and occasionally bleeds out the eyes. Thankfully that little genetic defect is the most outlandish thing about him and rather than having a vast subterranean lair and a penchant for doomsday weapons, Le Chiffre is more interested in saving his own neck from the terrorist organisations whose money he has squandered, an approach that fits in well with the general style of the film. Furthermore, there's also a terrific performance from Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, the most fully realised Bond girl in years. Rather than just being a set of curves, she is given plenty of emotional investment and the character is fleshed out more to the point where you want her and Bond to get together, not just fall into bed and be done with it.

But as I've already mentioned, the film does have its flaws and chief among these is the painfully long running time. At 144 minutes in length it feels somewhat overdone, especially when you consider how long it takes for things to get going. Bond doesn't even get to the titular casino until about an hour into the movie and his romance with Vesper is stretched out way too much. There is after all only so many sunsets you can sail into. The other principle reason for it not being the triumph it should have been either is the rather ham-fisted direction the plot goes in towards the ending with twists being churned out so much you start to wonder who the villain really is. Given that this comes immediately after the masterclass in tension where hero and villain come face to face in a nail biting poker game only serves to emphasis the flaws.

Regardless of these misgivings though, Casino Royale is still a very worthy addition. It isn't enough to bury the memory of invisible cars, helium breasted nuclear physicists, diamond faced mercenaries and Halle Berry but it still steers our beloved spy back in the right direction. And while some may bemoan the lack of Q or Money Penny, Craig makes a lasting impression as the new face of MI6 and should hopefully return to the role a lot more. This is a very enjoyable film and makes for a terrific last trip to the cinema of the year, it's just a shame projectionists won't let you fast forward through the ending to get to the fight.
6/10
Not thaaat good
mauricepfeife21 February 2018
Well shot, nice action, strong acting and some neat scenes in general. But it also has many scenes which felt like they were just there to stretch the whole thing (especially two scenes between the poker game) and I honestly found the romance part in this movie to be extremely cringey..
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Critics of Daniel Craig swallow your words and swallow them now!
daniel-pitcher19 December 2006
First off as soon as Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond there was a wave of criticism. Apparently he was too blonde, too fragile, can't drive etc. And what he has done in this film is take those words and shove them straight back down their throats. Also more important than that he has breathed new life into the 007 series we all know and love. After seeing the ridiculous 'Die Another Day' I wondered if the Bond legacy would last much longer, and I can tell you that Casino Royale is just pure brilliance. Basically restarting the entire saga it shows Bond getting his 00 status and embarking on his first major mission. Not impressed yet well the way it is delivered is great, Bond seems to have more of a personality (with less of the cheese gone now) and a tendency to make the wrong decisions. He gets hurt more often which make him look more like a spy as apposed to the gymnastic, rambo like superhero we have come to see in the latest films. This shows best near the start where Bond is chasing a very gymnastic bomb maker and ends making the moves he does look very basic and done without confidence, and I found this brilliant. There is point of the film that you see the old bond seep through. "shakened or stirred sir" "do I look like I give a damn" That just proves the gambles that the creators pulled off were just pure genius. What I can say after seeing this film is give Daniel a chance and go and see it, I can guarantee that it will not be a disappointment.
9/10
Hooray from the biggest Bond nerd ever
aernest18 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was all ready to hate this movie, having been a Bond fan since I was very young and walked to the neighborhood theater to watch Dr. No for 50 cents. Bond movies have always meant escape and pretty clothes and exotic locales and handsome, handsome men! Neither the script, locales, nor Bond disappointed here. Craig appears fully capable of carrying the role for many years to come. His take on Bond is as a tough little wiseacre bulldog, which is a refreshing change from the broad comedy the series sometimes veered into. I see that a lot of hard-core Bond fans don't like this movie because it's missing one or several parts of the "Bond formula" that they liked. No gadgets, no small talk, etc. Well, this IS a reboot - they're starting over. He won't get gadgets until later, and he won't get snarky until later. Patience, people.

I liked the shower scene best - you felt like Bond wasn't just using the girl, which again, seems to be the case in a lot of the films. Highly recommended.
10/10
Arguably the Best Bond Film Yet
siipola1226 November 2006
This is truly like no other 007 film created. Daniel Craig and Eva Green play strong roles in this gritty thriller. What I like so much about this film is that Bond is not a glorified action super hero, he is a man with weaknesses. Unlike other 007 films where you predict the plot before anything takes place this one leaves you questioning whether Bond will be alive by the end of the film. This film marks the age of a more ruthless James Bond and the lack of gadgets is well made up for by some incredible acting and action scenes. This film was filled with suspense unlike other Bond films.

Excellent 007 film!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A very good reboot to the franchise
SiPayn20 November 2006
First of all, lets just put an end to the Daniel Craig discussion. Anyone who has seen Casino Royale will tell you that Craig makes an excellent Bond. A darker, more gritty Bond to be sure, but given that this is a reboot of the franchise, he has taken the role and made it his own. They took the opportunity to reintroduce some of the classic Bond elements like the DB5 and the opening gun barrel shot, but do not allow themselves to be distracted from the plot.

Mads Mikkelsen makes an excellent villain, and Eva Green is lovely as Vesper Lynd. The movie trots along at an agreeable speed, so that you hardly notice the over 2hrs running time. A classic Bond for the 21st century, and with Craig as everyone's favourite spy I have hope for the continuation of the series.

****/*****
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Craig rules... any question?
shanfloyd12 December 2006
James Bond movies... since 1960s they have been faithfully delivering every aspects of popular entertainment in proper measures. Some of them are above average, some fell short. Still, in the end, you can predict the ingredients of a typical Bond movie - foolish political outback, advanced gadgets, Bond girls and sex scenes, gambling, some gunfighting, some physical actions, one "Bond, James Bond" comment, one "martini, shaken not stirred" comment etc etc. Then why so much interest about Casino Royale?

One is definitely Daniel Craig. The man's serious alright. This guy excludes all those air of funny sarcasm out of Bond's persona. And that overplayed sophestication of Pearce Brosnan too. Craig's Bond is thuggishly powerful, passionate, sometimes naive with a definite tinge of working-class diligence. He is more human. Now you not only appreciate James Bond... you 'feel' for him when he's beaten or betrayed, like I bet you've never done before.

The other is the director and screenwriter's calculated use of clichés and adding few changes... which perfectly fits the story and the mood. So at one place Bond says he doesn't even care about his martini shaken or stirred. Even the signature Bond tune is absent throughout the film except for the end credits. And I wouldn't spoil you the other changes but they bring definitely a fresh air to the franchise.

I love Eva Green. Here she's again with her mysterious appearance and magical presence. I must say that she's an excellent casting choice for this role.

Oh... I was about to end but one more thing: Chris Cornell rocks with his "You know my name"... one of the best Bond songs ever.
8/10
A bit long, but pure class!
kane478223 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It has been a long time coming and luckily, I've waited for all the hype and criticism to die down. I was always for Daniel Craig in the role of Bond (although I would have liked to have seen Clive Owen), having seen him in Layer Cake and I was surprised at the 'nutters' campaigning against him.

I'll start with the positives, of which there are many; Craig puts in a classy performance as Bond, Eva Green is one of the best Bond girls ever - with a part that really redefines the Bond girl image - full of verve, character, class, beauty and insecurity, all the supporting acts, such as Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, the speedjumping? French guy at the beginning and the CIA agent, play a significant and quality role to the film. My favourite part of the film was the initial interaction between Bond and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the scriptwriter(s) should be praised for such witty dialogue between the two and both actors should be commended for the way in which they played their parts. My second favourite part, is the climax to the poker game; intense and intriguing, regardless of whether or not you know how to play poker or not... put it this way, I would not want to play either of them! The action is awesome, brutal, honest, less 1 shot kills (like in previous Bonds), amazing fight scenes and quality sets. The banter is also highly entertaining, which thins out the hardcore violence, particularly the quips about the Vodka Martinis. Going back to Craig's portrayal of Bond, I must admit, I did feel at times it was just a very good action movie and didn't have any attachment to Bond. However, I believe that this is because its his first Bond film. The next one will rightfully stamp Craig's position as James Bond in folklore. Eva Green is sexy, sweet, lovable and sassy throughout the film:not your usual Bond girl and with that Green will be able to move away from the stereotype and go on to have a great career.

The are only a few negatives, which do need to be pointed out. Firstly, the introduction sequence & titles is pretty poor and too long, I think everyone was getting a bit agitated in the cinema, I know I was. Secondly, during the poker game, Mathis is constantly explaining the rules to Vesper, which as a poker player was a bit annoying. I suppose there is nothing wrong with it as people who don't understand the game will not really know whats going on, but the problem was the way Mathis' dialogue was written to blatantly explain what was going on. I think it would have been better to have had Bond mention it a little by little (like he did the first time to Vesper and Mathis at the bar). Lastly, the whole part after Bond wakes up in the hospital and then declares his love for Vesper, to the point where he finds out she has betrayed him, is too long in my opinion and could be cut.

Overall, the new Bond is essential viewing for any film fan. You'll find that there is something for everyone: romance, action, drama and comedy. GO SEE IT!!!
8/10
Predictable, but nonetheless enjoyable
refresh_daemon27 December 2006
After the last string of 007 movies, I didn't have a whole lot of faith in the franchise. I mean, even at their peak level, they're still only just decent action pictures, but the series is marred by a great number of miserable films. This one breaks that trend.

That's not to say it's a masterpiece of cinema, but it certainly doesn't make you wonder why you paid money to watch it and the story and plot, while not particularly innovative, are enough to keep the movie propelled. For most of the movie, the average cinemagoer should be well entertained.

One thing that confused me was that this is a "restart" of the 007 franchise, set in the here and now, rather than building upon the past legacy. But I didn't know that going into the film and so when I saw that James Bond was not yet a 007 but it was set in the present, I wasn't entire certain what was going on. Of course, once we hit the action sequence in Madagascar with a mad chase through the urban landscape and some amazing feats of athleticism from a minor character, well, I gave up trying to make sense of the franchise and decided to enjoy what I was watching on screen.

It's a simple story from start to finish, with simple, but effective film-making moving the audience from start to finish. Rather than going with the inflations of the 007 franchise's past, the overall direction that the film took is a lot more down to earth and even brutal. But it really helps give the franchise the little kick that we needed. Of course, many of the traditions of the franchise aren't fully present, although hinted at winkingly throughout the film, but I think only dedicated purists would have a problem with its adherence to the franchise, especially considering that it's a restart.

The film's weakest point is in ending. It just runs on too long. There are several points in the film where you would feel like it should be over, but the film continues on with a story, which might explain part of the Bond legacy, but doesn't really fit the dramatic arc of the film and so comes across almost as a second mini-film stuck at the end of the film. It wasn't necessary and I believe the film would've been tighter if it had ended earlier. There's also a little bit of deus-ex going on, albeit, it's necessarily to set up the ending of the film. I don't know if the film was kept this way for adherence to the novel, but I feel that changing up some of the details at the end and having the mini-story at the end preface the inevitable next film in the franchise might be a better fit.

Aside from that, the film manages to be one of the best 007 films in a long time and a good start to Daniel Craig's part of the franchise. This makes Casino Royale a recommendable film for those looking for some predictable, but nonetheless enjoyable entertainment. 8/10.
10/10
Bond reborn
kevin-miller4475 August 2011
Daniel Craig's career got a jump start due to this movie and it is no wonder why. Craig who is the latest Bond in the enormous franchise since the great Pierce Brosnan dons the name and kicks into action in this superb adaptation of Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel. Martin Campbell who previously worked on Goldeneye gives us the fans one of the best Bond movies ever produced. Craig brings to the screen a dark, gritty and more violent Bond than we have seen before. Despite all the skeptics, Craig is in my opinion of one the best Bonds in the franchise. He is third best next to the second best Pierce Brosnan and the best of all Sean Connery. The script proves ruthless in dynamic dialogue and never enters the cheese zone. There is a great action along with plenty of beautiful woman and a twist that may or may not come as a shock. Casino Royale reinvents Bond the way that Batman Begins reinvented Batman. New faces, same story different eye behind the camera. Though the film is lengthy, the movie uses the time to truly delve deep into the characters of James and his partner Vesper. The chemistry between them is one of the best ever captured on camera and the time they spend together through thick and thin doesn't make you question their next moves. From the opening scene that tells us how James Bond became a 00, to the last scene where Daniel Craig speaks the ever famous line setting up the first ever Bond sequel, the movie remains a fast paced fast talking suave, witty and overall outstanding addition to the already successful franchise that doesn't intend to die anytime soon.
9/10
Daniel Craig's here and brought the can of whoop ass
Mr Parker25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All I can think of is how ridiculous that whole "Ban Daniel Craig as Bond" craze was from a few months back. Bunch of fools, you'd think people would at least give the guy a chance but you know what? Craig doesn't need the support of those parasitic mongrels because he not only does justice to the Bond character, he has officially become (well, at least to me) the second best 007 after Connery.

The only real complaint I have about the film was that it was a bit too long. It was about two and a half hours but with all the endings, it felt like three. Never mind all that as this Bond is dark, brutal and everything else you've been hearing. The action scenes are awesome, especially the chase at the beginning where he chases a guy who's more like a cross between a flying squirrel and a rubber band. The fights in this movie are like watching bar fights. Even the card games were intense. There's a nice little torture scene that will make you wince, especially if you're a guy. Hell, even the girls in the audience were squirming.

They really went for realism this time out and it was without a doubt, the right move. Gone are the ridiculous gadgets and the one liners. This is a film about a ruthless government killer and is probably the closest to what Ian Fleming intended with the character. The villain is memorable and Eva Green as Vesper Lynd was a knockout.

If this is the way that Bond is gonna be from here on out, then count me in for the ride. Daniel Craig, my hat off to you. You did a hell of a job and proved the petitioners wrong.

RATING: ****1/2 out of *****.
10/10
Finally A Proper Return To Form For Bond!
greene51518 November 2006
Daniel Craig, finally does justice to the Bond series, In his first outing as Bond Craig Excels in his role, 'Casino Royale' is essentially Back To basics that has no room for Miss Moneypenny, Or Quartermaster Q,Although the character of Felix Leiter, does feature played by Jeffery Wright,

thankfully this production has no dreadful qualities that the dreadful'Die Another Day' displayed,

The plot is simple, Bond's journey takes us to the exotic Madagascar where he is on the trail of international terrorist Le Chiffre,played by Mads Mikkelsen, who is the most sinister/Sadastic bond villain ever!(who makes Dr No look like an amateur!

Le Chiffre, is gathering monies in the Casino Royale of the title, to fund international terrorism, It's down to Bond to get his man, and also romance some of the most sexiest ever Bond girl's to grace the screen this comes in the very voluptuous shape of Eva Green, who play's Vespre. The Superb Italian Actor Giancarlo Gianini, features as a shady police official.

The movies production was lensed in The Czech Republic, Bahamas and lake como in Italy, Long time production designer and Oscar Winner Peter Lamont, designs are as usual excellent, as are the trademark credit's by Rattle Stick, (Maurice Binder would be proud! John Barry, Protégé David Arnold, provides a typically excellent score very much in the vein of Barry,

It's down to Bond to get his man, and also romance some of the most sexiest ever Bond girl's,Eva Green, is devastatingly gorgeous, all A fine return to Bond, and long may James Bond Return,
10/10
Daniel Craig was amazing
Linda-O-Keefe28 November 2006
I would just like to say that Daniel Craig was amazing. I was so against the whole idea of him playing Bond, but he was the most realistic character I've seen in years. There was none of the campy Bond stuff - a very sexy man.

I just wanted to ask others if my eyes were playing tricks on me in the movie - did I see Richard Branson for a second in the airport scene? Also, the large black man playing cards at the table with the main characters - he looked like the actor who had been in Snatch. Can anyone fill me in on that? Any help for my questions would be much appreciated. All in all, I found it a "must see" movie - and will definitely buy it when it comes to DVD.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Good Bond, Mediocre Movie
bimska7820 November 2006
I must admit I'd fallen for all the hype and the positive reviews and to be fair I think the rave reviewers have got it right to a certain extent with regard to the performance of Daniel Craig - given what he had to work with, I think he did a good job and he has a lot of potential for future James Bond outings - as long as the current script writers are fired. I understand why some people on IMDb are upset with the absence of the usual Bond franchise stalwarts - from the gun barrel to Q, his gadgets and Miss Moneypenny - and I can forgive that in the interests of setting up "the birth of Bond as a 00 agent" (even with all the problems that have been mentioned by many other reviewers - 'M' being played by Judi Dench etc. etc.). However, I can't forgive another unimaginative script from Purvis & Wade (even the addition of Paul Haggis couldn't help this one). I never thought I'd walk out of a James Bond film and bemoan the lack of action sequences - although the set pieces are well done, the pacing of the rest of the film in between the action scenes makes you yearn for something to actually happen. And don't get me started on the music. I feel like personally sending David Arnold an award recognising his efforts in producing the all time worst score for a James Bond film. I am getting so fed up with his "screeching trumpets syndrome" scores, there is no originality in his work and even his occasional renditions of the James Bond theme are lacklustre at best. Please Please Please David Arnold, just go away I beg you and take Purvis & Wade with you to the same island! On the positive side, I believe that with a great script Daniel Craig does have the potential to be a great James Bond in the future and there is enough here from his performance to at least justify seeing the film. Before he died in 1996, Albert R. Broccoli's last words to Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli regarding the Bond franchise were "Don't F*** it Up!"....the jury's still out, I'm afraid!
9/10
Casino Royale, its not just for James Bond fans anymore....
zippygtrc28 November 2006
Daniel Craig Delivers In First Stint As Bond- just got back from seeing the new James Bond movie, "Casino Royale". just awesome! one of the few movies i've gone into with high expectations that have lived up to my own self-imposed hype.

i'm a Connery guy big time. But if Daniel Craig turns in another performance like this one in his next bond film (i think he's slated to do 4), we can officially pass the torch in confidence know that when Craig is done as Bond the next guy in line is screwed. Right Roger? Craig has jumped to a very close #2 Bond in his first movie as the legendary spy, surpassing all 4 other Bond actors including Peirce Brosnan and Roger Moore (we don't talk about the other 2 since Connery's reign) Don't not go see this because you're "not a James Bond fan". Go see it because you like great action movies, great acting, great one-liners (tastefuly done i might add), and great characters. This film is why people started going to movies in the first place. it deserves this as well as the other several thousand praises the film has received since opening two weeks ago. This may be the most complete, well acted, well written, well directed Bond movie ever, as well as one of the better dramatic-action movies in recent time. Its what the Borne Identity series wishes it was.

9 out of 10.
6/10
Mainly for Flemingists
revival057 December 2006
Since the punishment is blacklisting, I'm pointing out that this review have MINOR spoilers that I wouldn't say spoil anything.

I have been concerned for a little less than a year over the idea of creating a canon 007-prequel with the intent to close the series in favor of a "new". Being a Bond fan, and feeling that the 007 movie franchise is nothing short of a unique piece of cinema history it seems like an unnecessary move.

Me and my partner did exit the theatre, saying in unison: "Well it wasn't a BOND movie". Having not read the book, and always thanking Cubby rather than Fleming when it comes to Bond anyway, I couldn't argue with purist 007-fans saying that this is the greatest Bond film since the 60's. These were the same people who thought Timothy Dalton did a great, genuine Bond. Nothing wrong with that, but they are simply not playing on my field. On my field, Bond DOES care about his Martinis and without an invisible car or two it just wouldn't be a satisfying day at the office.

Just to make certain it's clear, it was NOT a bad film. Not in any way is this a weak and uninspired film. It is a rough-edged and gritty spy action film, powerful and intelligent with strong characters and surprises at every turn. Daniel Craig is arguably the best actor ever to portray Bond and judging by quality, Mads Mikkelsen is one of the top three or so actors to portray the villain. Eva Green is by far the most intricate and well-portrayed Bond girl. The stunt numbers are of bona-fide Bond magnitude, in short: nothing but awesome, and at least for the first half it is an action packed wonderwork of technical splendor. Now, with that out of the way I hope I didn't brake any toes on the Pro-Casino Royalers. This was definitely a worthy action thriller. But was it in my book a worthy 007-film?

Well, it's an ambitious destruction of the franchise, the producers have clearly been active in their work of deciding what is to be renewed and what is to be screwed. First of all, and this is well-known by now, it is clearly a darker and more violent film than even License to Kill which seemed like the limit of where you could take that benefit of Bond's occupation. In this film necks are twisted, skulls are crashed on cracking tile walls, blood squirt from broken noses, torture is used in the most sadistic ways a Freudian can imagine and when death comes, there is no time given for final speeches. I guess this was unavoidable and to tell the truth, it didn't bother me immensely. Bond shoots, Bond scores. Secondly, the classic 007-plot that basically has been used since Dr.No has been scratched. This is more debatable. Not that I don't dig originality, but after a first action-packed hour we have one hour of...poker? Yes. As much as Thunderball was a film about diving, Casino Royale is a film about playing poker. And if you're in my shoes, this is just not very interesting. Sure, Mr. Bond excuses himself to kick some bad-guy-ass, but the main idea of the film is that of Craig and Mikkelsen trying to win a game of poker. Not only is it strange, it stretches out and enters the (first) ending of the movie. When we think we're in for a nice finale, people are still playing poker! I go, "You are late for the settling of the scores, boys!". The film ends quite abruptly, without any real excitement and the second ending that follows does very little for the pace of the film.

Finally, we have a serious and soul-filled Bond character here, and we have a villain that is nothing but human and on top of that we have a Bond girl who can melt James' heart ála Diana Rigg. That this film dives into a downright romance story for a while is not very strange for a Bond-buff. But having it in a film with sadism and bone-breaking-violence.... it's not my bowl of soup. It becomes quite uneven and even though I appreciate the idea, it is one of the film's major flaws. Another problem, though I feel like a dork to mention it, is Daniel Craig. He is a good actor and he delivers 007 with weight. But it becomes a problem when we are to get to know a more personal Bond, and Craig keeps a massive stoneface worse than Timothy Dalton's - not to mention the ugly and near-psychotic nature of the character. Bond in this film is simply not a very nice guy and I didn't really feel like rooting for him. The same goes for the villain, while Mikkelsen is a great actor his role becomes quite bland in all it's "normality".

No matter which way I look at it, Casino Royale, even though being a good and satisfying action picture, ends up a bit over-produced. The plot is strange and the desire to flesh up the story creates a lurch and the film eventually looses it's balance. Why both the hero and the villain are so colourless I don't know. Perhaps the reformation of Bond should have been completed over the course of two or three films, to get the balance right? If it's all worth it. Maybe it's just me, but somewhere it feels like more fun to watch the mad man in the lab getting blown away from a superhero-agent than watching two guys play poker for an hour. All in all, the future of 007 is a bit shaky in my eyes, and I guess that in the next installment, we will know for sure if this reformation has been in vain.
8/10
Bond Resurrected, Awaiting Verdict Though
MacMurrah20 November 2006
What this movie is not, it is not an overhaul of the franchise, but an attempt to bring back to the fore the real Bond from the books. It took awhile to warm up to Daniel Craig, but by the end he epitomizes Bond very well.There are Bonds and then there are Bonds, this one is a different cut of Bond.If Pierce Brosnan was a natural debonair, Daniel Craig is a ruggedly suave version of the same, while Brosnan's Bond was a poor runner, poor on action and poor on stunts, Craig's Bond makes up for all these and then some.

The first chase scene in Madagascar was just too incredulous to be believable, but that is the only major lapse in logic I found throughout the movie which went from strength to strength from then on. After a whirlwind run through the Caribbean and the USA, the movie settles on its main story, the card game in Montenegro, which plays out extremely well, with surprises popping out in every turn. Overall this is a great movie, Daniel Craig, for all the crow he received, comes out blazing,he plays Bond fast, aggressive and hard.The movie shows Bond maturing from one with a heart to an icy cold killer. Since this is the newest incarnation of the secret agent,grand laurels need to wait until after the next few to see if he really bites into the role of Bond with his teeth.
10/10
Probably the Best Bond Film Ever
Skip_459121 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
***contains very mild spoilers, for example, how much screen time a character has***

I dunno, its either this or Goldeneye...I don't want to choose! However, I'd probably choose this one! Which is cool, since Director Martin Campbell directed both Goldneye AND Casino Royale...

Anyway, on to the review!

OVERVIEW

This film was utterly brilliant. This was also the fastest and most fun 144 minutes i've ever spent in a theater in my life! The action is fantastic, the story is excellent, the acting is perfect, the script is perfect, and all the technical effects are top-notch!

ACTING

Daniel Craig is brilliant as Bond! He plays the role masterfully and delivers each line perfectly, and also does very well in the fight scenes! He's a great new Bond and I look forward to seeing him in the next Bond adventures to come! Bravo!

Eva Green is a great new bond girl, and the chemistry between her and Bond is pitch-perfect! She does a great job in the role, capturing the mood of her character in every scene realistically and perfectly!

Mads Mikkelsen does one of the finest acting jobs for a villain EVER! He gives this villain a very creepy presence and just does a really perfect job!

Judi Dench is great once again as M! She gives strokes of perfection to each line delivered and plays the role perfectly!

Jeffrey Wright is fantastic as the CIA spy Felix Leiter! It is unfortunate that he didn't have more scenes to be in, but he does a splendid job with the role he has! Hopefully he'll return and have larger roles as Felix in the next Bond adventures!

Giancarlo Giannini is also pitch-perfect in his role as the friendly but mysterious contact Mathis! He does everything perfectly with his character, captures all the moods perfectly, and just does a wonderful job!

Caterina Murino does another great job with her bond girl character, Solange, but as with the case of Felix, Solange isn't in the movie much. This is unfortunate as well, but she still does a fantastic job with her role! Bravo!

Jesper Christensen does a perfect job as the mysterious Mr. White! Mr. White isn't exactly a large role, but it is important nonetheless. And Mr. Christensen does great with what he has, creating a fully fleshed-out character with his acting ability, and capturing each and every emotion perfectly for his character!

DIRECTING

Martin Campbell does another perfect job as a Bond director! The film is what it is because of him, and its an amazing film, so he therefore did an amazing job! He constructed and crafted a wonderful film, and I really hope he can do more Bond films in the future as well! The action is very well done in this film, with lots of energy and excitement, so he gets a lot of credit from me for that too! He also brings a great sense of fun to all the other scenes besides the action scenes, and makes them as fun and exciting to watch as the action scenes themselves! Its awesome! Amazingness!

WRITING

The writing is perfect also! Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, and Paul Haggis really made a great script, probably the best out of any bond film, with many great one-liners, dialogue sections, and everything else!

MUSIC

David Arnold's score is fantastic! I love it! One of the better Bond scores of the series, it captures each feeling for each scene perfectly and enhances the intensity of the fight scenes too! A great piece of work!

MAIN TITLES SONG - "YOU KNOW MY NAME"

"You Know My Name" is the song sung during the pre-titles, it is sung by Chris Cornell, and it is probably my favorite Bond pre-title song of all time! It is also now one of my favorite songs of all time! It captures the mood of a darker bond perfectly and gets us pumped up with energy for the movie that's about to come! I love it a lot! Its outstanding! It should win the Oscar for Best Original Song this year, or at least be nominated if it doesn't win.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

What can I say? The cinematography by Phil Meheux is perfection at its most perfect! You have to see it to believe it!

PRODUCTION DESIGN/SET DECORATION/ART DIRECTION

They are all...perfect! Beautiful! The casino is a marvel to look at, the tournament section of the casino where the tournament takes place is beautiful, the hotel is beautiful, and well, just about everything is beautiful! I also love Le Chiffre's boat, its a boat I would like to be on! Production design by Peter Lamont, Art Direction by Peter Francis, James Hambidge, Steven Lawrence, and Dominic Masters, and Set Decoration by Simon Wakefield.

COSTUMES

Lindy Hemming's costumes are fantastic! Each one brings a certain majesty to the character, and also are beautiful to look at! From the tuxedos to the dresses to the ordinary casual wear to the suits, they are great!

ACTION

Its perfect! All of the action scenes are intense, energetic, slightly brutal, and always edge-of-your-seat with perfect sound effects! They are also very creative, from crane-fights to nail-guns and brisk hand-to-hand combat, each action scene is something very different from the last action scene and are always interesting and never stale!

CONCLUSION

All in all, this is an amazing film, one of my new favorites of all time, i've seen it twice on consecutive days, and I want to see it again and again! This is truly a great film, a masterpiece, and will surely be remembered for ages to come!

I give this one an easy 10 out of 10!
10/10
Weren't We SO WRONG About Craig!
taintedgrape9 December 2018
There has never and will never be a more quintessential actor nor outing that more perfectly encapsulates every element of Ian Fleming's creation. Much of this is due to finally landing the rights to Casino Royale and a beautifully down-played performance from Craig. More holistically, this film lined up everything perfectly in a way never expected by the public off the back of Die Another Day, nor warranted by any blockbuster action film 20 movies into a series. Skyfall came close, but as with a fine wine, Craig's first outing just gets better and better as his third outing starts to sour as the film succumbs to the down'fall's of an incredibly over-hyped release and initial 'sky'-high reviews. Casino Royale is truly the archetypal action movie, with a brilliant line-up of actors. What a fantastic watch!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
double 0 spectacular
wigmanduke19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who would have thought that blonde Bond Daniel Craig could make such an impact? Admittedly not me - however, how wrong I was. Casino Royale could well be the best of all Bond movies. It is a combination of Licence To Kill's brutality, Goldfinger's wit, and the emotional weight of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. However, centre to it all is the man himself - even though he doesn't say it until the final seconds, there is no doubting that Daniel Craig is Bond - James Bond. He easily conveys emotions, is splendid in action scenes, and his delivery of one liners is sheer perfection.

Eva Green's performance is also quite remarkable - she is very mysterious, and when the final twist involving her is believable, and tragic. Mads Mikkelsen is silent and sinister (and his asthma is a nice touch). However, the most pleasant surprise is Mr White, who is the first reoccurring villain in a long time. Judging from the ending, he is no doubt set for a return in Bond 22.

The action in the film is the best I've seen in a Bond movie - not a hint of CGI, it is tense and exciting, and Craig's participation in all of the stunts makes it doubly thrilling.

The only thing that perhaps was a let down was the song, 'You Know My Name' - a different version to what I had previously heard. However, this is a minor complaint (especially when you have Daniel Klienman's retro titles to watch!). The film is simply stunning, and long may this style of Bond movies continue.
8/10
Bond, Bonder, the Fondest of all Bonds
hiekkaroopi8 April 2007
As a novice to all that is Bond, I watched this movie with much doubt as to it's real value as a real eyebrow raiser. What ever comes to Daniel Craigs muscle toned body or the amount of action stuffed into a single film is beside the point. How good is the story? Let me tell you, it was very good. It was so good that I want to see that movie again. From a cinema goer who hates macho bull, this is a high accolade indeed. The director has made this genre so palatable that skimpily dressed women and ridiculously silly gun slinging heroes are a relish to watch. The writers have managed to tone down the 60's just enough to bring this movie up to date without riping out the heart from the Ian Fleming original story. I applaud you! This movie has made Bond movies once more hip and Daniel Craig seems to have filled up the tuxedo with a mighty big persona indeed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Strong opening for Graig
TheHande3 December 2006
Casino Royale is a Bond-film with all the right ingredients. Big actions sequences and clever dialogue. Additionally it manages to be different from previous Bond-films and manages to turn certain conventions on their ears with style. The films attempt at being darker is successful without the film becoming hopelessly bleak.

Graig is also a very good Bond. He's charismatic and brooding like Timothy Dalton, but can still deliver Bond's typical witticisms naturally. He's still a bit of a tough case and not quite as clean as Connery or Brosnan, but definitely the type of Bond that the audience identifies with.

Additionally the film manages to (re)start Bond's tale in a way that isn't too cheesy, though I undoubtedly did miss Q and Moneypenny. With all his got, Graig still does a good job.

The only point of criticism is the slightly misleading parts of the film where the viewer thinks the movie is ending while in truth it is only entering its final act. This makes the film feel a little long. Still this is balanced out by the quirks of a fairly fresh 00-agent who still makes mistakes and pays a price for them.

Regardless, this Bond-film had the most satisfying open-endings I have ever seen. I wait eagerly for what's in store for us in the next one.
10/10
Best Bond Film!!
papanloveu4 August 2021
Casino Royale is undisputedly one of the best Bond films in the franchise, but you know what? It's not just a great Bond film, but an overall masterpiece in cinema.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The best Bond Film ever?
dwtaxi10 December 2006
Possibly, although its a little unfair given the advantages modern special effects can give (when used appropriately, and they are here). Make your own judgment, personally I think it just might be. Before you start you have to get past the issue of CR being in effect a complete Ret-Con, it is Bond's first assignment, but in the 21st century, so all the other movies don't exist. Once you have accepted this Casino Royale is hugely enjoyable.

The girls, guns and gadgets are all there, but simplified, more believable. As for Craig; he might not have the humour of Connery, but he makes up for it with sheer gall. He owns the role.

CR does seem to be twice as long as other Bond Films and you notice it, but the action holds your interest without difficulty and almost every minute is used to full effect.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A couple of extra points for being a better Bond….
Michael Fargo27 November 2006
This was an enjoyable film with a post-Cold War sensibility that makes you consider what a "license to kill" really does to you. Does it make a better man or justify a psychopath? We never had to wonder about that in the previous installments. I thought this was closest to Dr. No, which is welcome news.

However, this never had the kick or audience involvement of some of the better Bond films. It is a better pieced together work of cinema, but the story line is muddy and I never warmed to Eva Green's Vespa Lynd, lovely as she is. Some of the torture seemed to dwell on the sadistic and slowed things down. But Daniel Craig, I thought, lived up to the hype.

As an adventure film, though, I thought this was mediocre with an emphasis on production values instead of action sequences. And I started to squirm at the third hand being dealt at the casino. The outcome was certain and the film 20 minutes too long. For instance, minute for minute, Mission: Impossible III (under-rated and ignored for the wrong reason) is tighter and has more kinetic punch (nothing in this Casino Royale approaches the sequence on the bridge in M:I3).

But hail to Daniel Craig! Give this guy a script and a good director…and his angst over a license to kill. And they can knock out even more of the stuffy self-references to the Broccoli enterprise. I'm sure half the audience had no idea what any of those meant.
Incredible, back to the old days of cinema
sumtim3s00n7 December 2006
I had my doubts, before seeing the movie, wondered if it is going to be another stupid action flick as those with Brosnan, only this time with a good actor, on par with Connery or Moore. Hollywood these day is mostly just mindless, stereotypical action and witless dialogs.

This Bond is everything that describes the opposite. Its witty, the fast paced scenes and slow ones are in very good balance and either being an action scene or a slow scene, it never ever gets boring or unimaginative. There are numerous funny and witty remarks and associations placed very delicately, precisely and do not stand out intrusively. Everything is done with quality in mind, in good taste. The word original can be even used, word that can be very seldom said about most Hollywood movies. It remains an action flick, its far from being a complex drama with a moral underlying the story. The movies gives us hope that mainstream action films can still be breathtakingly good. Oh, there are a few some advertisements for certain items placed strategically and an unnecessary or misplaced line here or there but that could be called nitpicking.

All in all this Bond is incredibly good and I hope the sequels well follow in its footsteps.
6/10
As an action or thriller, disappointing, even if it is a reconstruction in Bond series
Ziya9022 December 2009
Yes, Casino Royale is not like any other Bond movie, but unfortunately some habits are still kept and as an action thriller or a movie, it is not a breakthrough or an epochal movie and personally, to me it was not a real good movie. In James Bond movies, many things are the same, there are some inevitable clichés, otherwise it does not become a Bond movie. Bond falls in love with several attractive women, if the spy is a woman, she turns into good, because she loves Bond too. There are three kind of women in Bond movies, the women who fall in love with James Bond when they meet him, the women who are spies, but after a while, change their side and the women who pretend to fall in love with James Bond, but even they don't harm him, because probably they fall in love with him. As a result, it means that every woman falls in love with James Bond which I already get bored and find totally unrealistic. In recent years, some audiences had woken up probably or the filmmakers had changed their mind that is unbelievable but possible. Then Casino Royale was made. It was in IMDb Top 250 and still it is there, because many people thought that it was a revolution. James Bond is a blond, unknown actor. There is Eva Green. When I saw the movie, yes there were more changes besides the actors and actresses, for example, James Bond was not a hero in the movie, the lavatory scene or the trick of Bond at the end of the pursuit takes place in the beginning was showing that. However, although, it seems a conscious, revisionist film, there are still some unforgettable clichés. Is there a woman falls in love with James Bond,yes. Even if Eva Green's character is different (more realistic) than previous Bond girls. Yes, as some people say too, she is not a woman who falls in love with Bond instantly and to me she is not like a belonging of James Bond tails after him. However, even if she seems a feminist, she has a sexual relationship with Bond at last and it means that Bond attracts her. By the way, there is another woman in the movie either who falls in love with Bond and makes sex with him. Then, where is the difference? I don't like Martin Campbell because of Mask of Zorro especially. In Casino Royale, Campbell is pretty good. The movie is pretty stylish, visually well, a well made work. The first action scene was so fast-moving and very energetic. The gambling scenes are elegant. However, no gimmick in the rest.
7/10
Insane opening action ! Then slowly fizzled
awvknj17 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely no chemistry between the actors- Didn't see why anybody would go gaga over this Bond's body, No witty repartee he just was like a superhero manikin out there and doing crazy action scenes and then falling in love? What. This Bond wasn't sensitive enough to have any emotions he was just cold- not hot- the best part of the movie was the first five minutes and few moments toward the end but I just could never buy the fact that this Bond could fall for anybody- wasn't believable. I gave stars for the action because the action was interesting but the acting wasn't.
6/10
Quite a disappointment for an avid bond fan
siddjazz17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I probably went into the theater with too high an expectation. And what a turn off. The opening sequence raised my expectations, with Sebastien Foucan running across small shops and a construction site(needless to say, bond was not half as graceful as our traceur). Well Daniel Craig's more rugged alright, but lacks the qualities of a womanizer, thus breaking the legacy of bond being a gentleman, who gets any lady he sets his eyes upon. From there on it just gets slower and slower. The whole sequence, well collection of sequences at the Casino Royale is sinfully long. It just fails to grip the viewers. You just see him running in and out of the casino, now and then to kick some arse. Caterina Murino was hot alright but Eva Green was just a walking talking powder box. There aren't many more scenes to look out for, except for him wrecking the Aston DBS and the apparent torture scene. There's no point criticizing anyone, because Mr. Daniel Craig has signed a contract for three films. So he's going to be around for a while.
6/10
The Old Bond is Dead.....
kooleshwar1 February 2007
Im a huge fan and despite the delayed review I did see it in the first weekend of it's release. The critics loved this bond, and that scared me the most, bond was never about the critics, in a politically correct world he was a dash of imperialism, watching a bond movie was like eating a double-decker sandwich with everything in a gourmet restaurant the ingredients were the same but the expensive surrounding made the taste so much better.

Im pro-change, everything changes and with the changing times everything needs to change, the old bond was from the royal family and was cold-war era relic, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the movies were at loss for new villains and frankly none of the modern villains or their motives (save for golden-eye with the defected 00) had the flavour that SPECTRE and its associates brought to the movies, now we have a villain albeit a faceless, stateless one TERRORISTS AND TERRORISM, Osama is not marketable enough so the bond makers have done the next smartest thing and MADE PASSING References TO THE ORGANISATION (SPECTRE REINVENTED AND IM WILLING TO BET MY LIFE ON IT), thus bringing us back to the faceless all powerful organisation that shone in bond movies till the 70's, the world was a bigger place back then,the new spectre with its terrorist links (whats the bet, they will take the chicken route and not discuss their religion) will have global universal HATE APPEAL not enjoyed by Spectre (I'm from India we liked the soviets).

But this movie has gone and removed almost everything that was good about bond, he was royal blood, charming, confident, racist, chauvinist while this one is everything but the above he hardly even feels British.

The lingering feeling is that this movie IS In fact PREQUEL FOR THE FORTHCOMING MOVIES where bond will find his groove and settle in it, the closing lines, the references to "the organisation" give us hints that the old bond will be back in a new avatar and this movie wants to give a Freudian analysis on why he becomes the way he his, I'm not a big fa of this move.

This is however closer to IAN FLEMINGS EARLIER NOVELS THEN ANY OTHER BOND MOVIE, I've read some novels and the earlier one did in fact have the dry, cold humour and brutal action scenes like this one.

The movie is entertaining though we have loads of superb one-liners but they get overbearing after sometime, i don't see many of them becoming bond movie legends the way even Pierce Brosnans one-liners have become.

The production values are absolutely superb with excellent use of black and white in the opening scenes, the soundtrack is OK though and the old formula of the big bond song also dies with this movie.

The acting is superb all around, too much has been said about Craig I for one would not rate him as highly as the others, his acting great though.

There are a couple of memorable scenes such as the opening scene and the chase scene.

The movie is also quite long and get boring sometimes, those who don't enjoy poker will not enjoy this movie as much, the emotions one experiences while playing hold-em have to played to be understood.

The filmmakers almost purposefully try and be different, the fabulous Aston Martin is wasted, they almost purposefully have no explosions in this movie at the end which actually makes the climax quite OK.

This movie has been made with the women and the critics in mind, no guys (the traditional audience) likes to see nude men, and so much emotion and drama in this bond film.

The twists are predictable and expected and add little to the movie.

When I went to a bond movie i didn't want a character rooted in reality, i wanted a super-spy, hot chicks, great care chases, guns, explosions, supervillians, Q, chauvinism and still be called cool, like I said it was like double-decker sandwich with everything (especially extra cheese), seeing all this in a big budget (expensive) setting made it so much cooler, removing most of the ingredients and substituting others with low fat variety, will always make it less tasty.

In all we have bond movie thats more of a prequel and which has deviated from almost every bond characteristic to date, participation of critics and newer audience will ensure higher ratings but people with more simple tastes like me (i enjoyed American pie) prefer the old bond any day.

Watch the movie after due consideration.

-s changed almost all bond characteristics, long and boring in parts, the effort to be different show, so-so background score.

+/-s Daniel Craig, maybe a prequel, the movie pimps everything bond drives a ford for gods sake.

+s superb acting and production, a couple of memorable scenes, SHOWS SOME GREAT PROMISE FOR THE FUTURE.

total 6/10 (fell below expectation but the ratings are higher because i see this as a prequel for greater things to come,AND THAT AS ANY OTHER MOVIE EVEN AS AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO BOND THIS MOVIE WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD, BUT AS A BOND FILM THIS MOVIE IS BELOW PAR )
9/10
Best Bond Film in Years
fwgrhouse2 April 2007
I am a huge Bond fan. I have seen all of the movies, know all the different Bond actors, villains, and girls. When I first heard that the producers were hiring Craig to play Bond I had my doubts, but I have to say that this is the best Bond movie in years. Daniel Craig did an excellent job and I would have to say that the only other actor who did better than was Sean Connery. Another thing I really love bout the film is that it cuts down on boring scenes and replaces them with more exciting scenes and that is something which is hard to get in a movie these days. I also love the action sequences a lot and the fact that this movie shows how James became Bond. If you are a Bond fan, you would be insane to not see this one.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Amazing action for the first half or so...
jemps91821 November 2006
The people behind James Bond catch up to the lucrative angle of resurrecting the franchise with a prequel in Casino Royale, Bond's first mission as 007. In what is supposedly the first of the entire Bond series, newcomer Daniel Craig reprises the role as the youngest, blondest Bond. Don't expect early James to be as suave or refined as the others; here, he is still very much crude and arrogant, packaged as an efficient, feral killing machine.

While Craig has the best Bond body yet, he is eons away from his pretty boy predecessors. His oozing masculinity could not obviously translate into the smooth alter ego that his character needs. His face is too primordial to successfully evolve, even when clad in a tailored monkey suit. His leading lady Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green) had to verbalize this in their first meeting in the train scene, the producers' caveat in case it's lost on the viewers. She had to say that he wears his clothes indifferently, etc. Having to tell the audience this, instead of it just being shown, revealed a possible insecurity/defense of this choice for Bond. His is a cold, savage face of a killer.

Meanwhile, Green is reminiscent of a more mature Jennifer Love Hewitt; she does not do justice to her character as a quintessential object of lust/Bond girl (well she is, after all, playing an accountant). Her frame is too slight and her face too overly made up; nothing great. Only the villains were perfectly cast, even Le Chiffre's girl was much hotter.

Still, this movie showcases amazing action for the first half or so, most especially the Madagascar chase at the cockfight through the construction and embassy. You can, however, skip the pathetic Mediterranean lovey-dovey boat cruise portion with the straining Titanic-like strings at the background. What a shame, having already gotten the ever-cool Chris Cornell to supply the opening theme, with the clever intro credits.
9/10
Don't like Daniel Craig? Get over it and move on!
rodney_mattallica20 November 2006
Casino Royale is, definitely, a great James Bond film. The most common reason for people not liking it is because of Daniel Craig. They're not used to this new, tougher Bond. They're all used to the lighter, more laid back Bonds. However, it is life that we can't have them forever. We have to move on, and isn't it actually better to see a change in style? I have to say, it's been a while since we've had a decent villain. The films used to have big (and small) hard villains with special features, like Jaws, Mr. Big and Oddjob, and today we get the more 'technical' villains with which we worry more about the plot than anything else. But like I said, we need a change, and we've got it. At least this time it wasn't taken too far with invisible cars and bases made of ice.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond is back, baby.
manwithavanpro20 November 2007
Bond is back, baby.

Seriously… With "Casino Royale," an intricate story is woven chock full of action, and yet the film is not overproduced, making this the most buyable Bond flick of late. Furthermore, this James Bond is not your typical clean-cut pretty boy. He is rebellious and arrogant by nature, and willing to make extreme decisions. And doesn't it make sense that a guy who does this kind of work is not just a yes-man, but in fact has his own agenda too? Daniel Craig makes for a sensational Bond, and at times he even manages to blur the role between good guy and villain, given his cool demeanor and icier stare. Oh, and of course, we are blessed with a perfect entourage of Bond girls to provide ample eye candy as well. Keep 'em comin'.

www.manwithavan.blogspot.com
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Craig is excellent,, but Connery (still) rules!
mdouglasfresno3 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Bond movie was certainly a breath of fresh air, after 35 years of junk. "Casino Royale" is definitely superior to any of the Bond movies Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or Pierce Brosnan appeared in. And Bond is finally back to something approximating Ian Fleming's creation.

I'd have to say Daniel Craig is probably the closest incarnation of the Fleming Bond yet. However, that's not to say that the variations that Connery/Broccoli/Saltzman came up with for Bond weren't absolutely critical to James Bond's acceptance by movie audiences. Even purists would have to agree that had "Dr. No" completely recreated Fleming's very cold-blooded, humorless Bond, then there probably never would have been a series at all; just one fine movie, but a box-office flop.

Daniel Craig is excellent, yet he doesn't have the screen magnetism or star quality of Sean Connery (of course he's light-years ahead of the rest of the Bonds). Still, I might have rated this movie nearer to the best of the Connery movies (Dr. No thru Thunderball) had it been done as a "period piece" set in the 1950's. This was the producers BIGGEST ERROR. The character of Bond simply works best in the Fifties/early Sixties as Fleming intended; NOT in the 70's/80's/90's/2000's!!!

The overall "feel" of this movie is just too "modern" for an adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel, in everything from wardrobe and hairstyles to political-correctness and standard action-picture set-ups. Perhaps the special synthesis that all came together for movie-making in the early 60's simply cannot be duplicated now. But those early Bond pics had a look and feel that is simply irresistible; that transports me back to the Early 60's whenever I see them. I'd have to say that probably even if filmed as a period piece, any Bond movie done now just couldn't duplicate that style. Those alive at the time might understand what I'm talking about; those born in later eras probably never could. The early Bond films were, like Fleming's novels, creatures of their time. Nothing done nowadays can touch that era. That's why this "Casino Royale", while excellent for a current movie, doesn't approach the early Bond films. And for me, Sean Connery IS James Bond 007. Always had been, always will be.
8/10
Bond? Or just another action flick?
TheHip1422 November 2006
What starts off as a promising Bond flick, takes a sharp turn down "ugly" road as it progresses. As I sat down eagerly awaiting the new Bond flick, I didn't know what to expect. I have seen every Bond film and am a big fan. I was anxious to see the new Bond. And while I wasn't totally disappointed I wasn't completely impressed either.

Starting off with a great opening scene then progressing through a cool opening credit sequence with a great song, and then going on to an awesome scene in Africa, Casino Royale starts off great! Yet that's the problem. It only starts off great.

Daniel Craig is a new, different kind of Bond. Personally, I thought he was great. He is more of a strong silent type. Not to many witty remarks like Roger Moore and he isn't as classy as Pierce or Sean but he's right up there with Sean as one of the greatest Bonds.

Unfortunately not even Craig could completely save this film. Right after the first 20 minutes is over the film spirals down. The plot is weak to say the least, the stakes never seem to high, the girl is to young for Bond and the villain isn't much of a threat.

I miss the layered plot, the neat gadgets and the good BOnd girl and villain that we got in almost every other Bond flick.

When it comes to plot, I pretty much could have turned on my TV to watch some World Series Poker, because essentially the plot revolves around Bond winning a poker game. Although this is one of the better poker scene I have seen in a movie and it was quite well done and intense.

Another thing is that the action is hardly anywhere to be found, save for three scenes throughout the entire 2 and half hour movie there is basically no action, and the action that is there does not further the plot at all, it is kind of there just because it has to be. The plot was weak, thin, and had no depth.

Neither Bond nor his allies never seemed to be put in high risk danger, there is never a lot at stake either.

Eva Green would have been a good Bond girl if the part was written right. She comes in from absolutely no where, her character never serves any purpose in the story, it's only towards the end that the writers decided to throw her into the main story which really just confused things more rather than excite them.

Last but not least is the villain. Le Chiffre is nothing compared to some of the great Bond villains. He is a henchman for the big boys. He's basically like a middle men, he holds money for the terrorist, he's not even a terrorist. He's not tough, evil or cruel. He also has medical conditions that are never explained (bloody tears?? the puffer he takes??) He is just not the diabolical villain I was hoping for. He is essentially a banker for bad guys.

In the end though there is enough good to out-way the bad. Or at least balance it out. The first 20 minutes of the movie are simply fantastic( the first scene, the opening credits, the Africa scene) also all the poker scenes are very intense and well done. Daniel Craig shines as a different more darker type of Bond and he is great in the role. The action sequences that are there are fantastic, but there is just not enough action for a 2 and a half hour Bond movie. The movie might be missing some key Bond elements (girl, villain, action, gadgets) yet in the end when those mediocre elements are combined with some fantastic elements (Bond himself, the action that's there, opening credits, theme song, poker scenes) Casino Royale proves itself to be better than just a decent action flick, while it's not the Bond I was hoping for it wasn't the cheesy popcorn flick either. Like I said before there were some fantastic things about it, and some very bad things. Although when it comes down to it Casino Royal is a good Bond flick that will be remembered more for Daniel Craig as Bond rather than the villains, gadgets or girls.

I give this 8/10
10/10
Best Bond yet, by far
joshuaadamleclair7 December 2006
This is the right Bond at the right time. Daniel Craig has helped take the Bond franchise from the realm of quasi-comedy to the serious spy/action/thriller. And he has managed to do it with style, wit, and a confidence that seems real rather than manufactured.

He is also the first Bond who looks as if he could actually win in hand to hand combat. This helps the believability of the film tremendously. Could any of us imagine Roger Moore in the opening chase scene? I think not.

This Bond is also vulnerable, both physically and emotionally. Unlike in any other film, there are moments where you actually question what is going to happen. I've never seen or felt that in a Bond film before.

Despite the annoying (and blatantly obvious - does any one really believe Bond would drive a Ford?!?!) product placements, this seemed to me like the first movie that actually wanted to be a movie rather than just an excuse for Bond to say the same old lines and romance a beautiful woman out of her clothes.

It will be interesting to see where Mr. Craig and the franchise go from here.
8/10
My name is Bond, Vagabond Bond
karl_consiglio3 June 2007
I am not ready to say that this was my favorite Bond movie but I certainly liked it. I like this Bond very much, he is a bit of a messed up Bond with issues, he is human. His character, which is not ultra perfect like the previous ones reflects the times. this Bond targets values, i like that. This bond even sweats and bleeds, makes mistakes and is not always cheered and praised by the company. He actually gets it on with Moneypennies which is lovely. I have the privilege of having met Daniel Craig when he was in Malta doing Munich. I think he is great for the part, a bit of a too bad, too good Bond this one is, unbalanced is the word. I look forward to seeing more. I like the fact that he does not give a damn if his Vodka Martini is shaken or stirred.
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Love Bond - Very surprised to love this one :-)
Ladyirol1 November 2007
I have loved the Bond story from the beginning. Dreamed of Pierce Brosnan becoming the Bond and was not disappointed when it finally worked out. I did not expect to like this one at all and the trailers did not encourage me to believe otherwise. I would not have even gone to the theater to see it except for the fact that my brother - one with no love for Bond movies - told me I needed to see it to believe it.

Wow! This one is now in my personal library - I could never have suspected I would appreciate the many differences so much. I still love Pierce and, of course, Sean, but that does not keep me from appreciating the development of the Bond character. Adding more depth only serves to increase the pleasure of watching and this Bond is unquestionably "Bond". Not only that - taking the storyline to the beginning gives so much more to the Bond character - why didn't someone think of doing this story before? "M" is perfect as always - you've got to love that interplay.

The intro would have been better if the only colors used were red, white and black - the other colors did not work well. Other than that, the only complaint that I can make is that I could wish the actor a bit younger - this was the first adventure in the Bond storyline and he seems a bit long in the tooth to play the character - I am afraid that like Brosnan - we will not be able to keep him as long as we might like.
10/10
Finally, A Tough Guy Bond
louis-king17 April 2007
Those reviewers who didn't like Daniel Craig as James Bond should read some of the novels. The James Bond of the novels is more like a British Mike Hammer. You get the feeling that Bond had a rough, working class background and the sophisticated taste came later. The Bond of the novels had worked behind the lines in WWII sabotaging and killing Nazis.

Indeed, when Sean Connery first auditioned for the role, it was this roughness that got him the part. Connery had to be taught the sophisticated veneer. Till Craig came along, the young Connery was the only Bond that looked like he could walk into a bar and break your arm off.

The Bond character got sidetracked with the likes of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan who look and acted like overage gigolos. I never could see Moore, Dalton or Brosnan kicking anybody's ass. I never wanted to be Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton or Peirce Brosnan. I wanted to BE the young Sean Connery. I hope to be like Connery is now when I get to his age.

I like the fact that Craig didn't have those ridiculous gadgets. Bond didn't have them in Dr. No or From Russia With Love. One of the best fights in all the Bond movies was the claustrophobic Orient Express fight with Robert Shaw. Gadgets? some tear gas, a knife and a garroting wire.

I like Daniel Craig as Bond. He's ruthless, primitive, and tough; the educated sophistication doesn't quite mask it. A good man to have on your side.
8/10
Sublime
seawalker9 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's the ridiculous to the sublime. The ridiculous being the piece of horribleness that was "Die Another Day". "Casino Royale" is a sublime movie. Exactly what a Bond film is supposed to be like in the 21st century.

It's a magnificent piece of work. As tough as hell. Hard, modern, particularly uncompromising (that torture scene - eek!), action all the way, with an emotional centre, and the perfect way to take the series forward. I particularly liked the way that Bond became Bond during the movie, picking up the various elements that we have become familiar with over the years (the license to kill, the Aston Martin, the tuxedo and finally that iconic catchphrase.) I have said it before. Daniel Craig wouldn't have been my first choice as the new Bond. I would have gone for somebody like Gerard Butler. But with one small reservation, Daniel Craig is great as Bond. Really fabulous. He looks like a boxer who has lost a couple of fights (you can see it in his face), but a man you would hesitate to mess with and would not expect to beat in hand to hand combat ever again. A thug with a veneer of sophistication. (Is that the literary Bond? I don't know. It must be 20 years since I read a Bond novel.) It's a great acting performance by Daniel Craig, which let's be honest is not something that normally matters in the lead role in a Bond film.

A while ago I wrote that I was worried a massive departure from the girls, guns, gadgets, villains and action Bond formula would alienate the fans of the movie Bond as opposed to the literary Bond. "Casino Royale" is not that massive a departure. There are no gadgets as such, but everything else mentioned above is present. (Eva Green as Vesper Lynd? Oh, yes. Tasty enough to spread on toast and eat.) It's a shame there was no time to introduce a new Q or a Moneypenny. I would have liked to have seen new actors playing those characters, even in very short scenes, but no doubt they will appear in the next film. (And the next film already looks as thought it could be quite intriguing, doesn't it? Who wants to bet that the shadowy organisation at the heart of "Casino Royale" is actually Spectre and that the head of that organisation is actually Ernst Stavos Blofeld?)

A criticism. Er... I didn't like the theme song, that much. OK. I suppose it was alright, but "Casino Royale" needed a ballad and it needed a Bassey, not soft rock. Also, that reservation about Daniel Craig that I mentioned earlier? It's that Daniel Craig comes across more as a fighter than a lover. I didn't really believe him in any of the love scenes.
2/10
disappointing
twine20027005 August 2007
many things were wrong with this movie bond always had class, a good bond girl, and gadgets, admitting, the movie was good, but, should have been better, too short and too childish was this bond movie, i unfortunately will be adding this to my bond collection, putting it near the original casino royal movie, and never say never again, as it is a pretty big disappointment if there was ever a "bad" bond movie, this will be very close to it

Daniel Craig was a pretty good bond, but the movie itself, wasn't very well, if totally, done, i hope to see the next bond movie in order, until the next one
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Reinventing Bond beyond Bond! 007 is no longer a laughable figure...
ozjeppe31 December 2006
A huge sigh of relief and a satisfied smile on my face... This was probably the only way to re-invent the Bond franchise, which I have followed the past 30 years: Tight, fresh and modern-day-explosive & technical in as realistic a manner as the series can handle. And with a surprisingly vulnerable villain and a close, credible bond (haha) to the heroine. It's Bond beyond Bond, so to speak. And Craig himself? Hard and cool as a rock, although equally hard to get personal with... But that's a needful purpose in order to lay the pathway for another string of films to work, I guess.

Dalton touched it a bit in "License to kill", and to some extent, Brosnan in "Die another day". But to me, Bond has never been so personally dramatic and involving as here, as the haunting end scenes truly underline: 007 is no longer a laughable, ridiculed figure! It's just slightly overlong and overplodding, but contains opening and closing action pieces of unreal proportions! And the casino theme and its poker game itself doesn't dominate- it blends in nicely.

As with the transformation of "Batman begins", I can with pleasure really look forward to a new and reborn series with hopefully unique qualities.

7 out of 10 from Ozjeppe.
10/10
The best Bond film ever made!
thebengalimafia-115 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have to go on record and say that after Sean Connery the Bond franchise was dead for me. Roger Moore was cheesy, and Pierce Brosnan never convinced me as being the James Bond type. Connery was smooth, he had class, and I feel that he was the only actor to do justice to the character; he really set the standard. After him, the rest were a waste of time, but I still watched all the movies just to see if they could offer me Bond in a real way; none of them did.

And now we get Daniel Craig; a James Bond for the 21st century. His appearance alone breaks all the rules; average height, blonde hair, blue eyes, six pack abs, and a "don't give a damn" attitude. Here's a bond who doesn't care if he bleeds (and he does) to get the bad guy. The fans of the franchise (myself included) were tired of the same recycled garbage in Bond films. 007's plots were becoming overly formulaic and dependent upon special effects as opposed to plot and God forbid character. This time around there's no Q, there are no gadgets, there's no Bond girl with a name like a porn star. Casino Royale is as much about the man, James Bond, as it is about the bad guy he's supposed to take down.

Craig gives his portrayal of Bond a raw grittiness that could peak anyone's interest in James Bond. This is also the first film in the 40 year history of the franchise to explore and reveal Bond's character. We begin to see who he is and what made him that way. Not to mention the audience finally gets a Bond girl who's worth our time. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is as beautiful as she is brilliant. Like Bond, I had my doubts about Green being a Bond girl. There was news all over the internet about potential new Bond girls. Ex beauty queens, Indian actresses, some of them were both. Personally, I felt they were either a pretty face or another bimbo trying to make it in show business; no talent either way. Green makes for a terrific Bond girl and is a great actress. She gave Craig's performance a unique balance and her presence in the film accentuated Craig's.

And just when you think the movie is over it picks right back up again. The action was terrific, and for some reason, it always seemed real. I have to hand it to director Martin Campbell. His take on this new Bond was nothing short of pure entertainment. In short, the best Bond film in years.
1/10
Brain Dead Bond Flic
mpmemrm7 August 2021
Total nonsense. Outlandish is too kind a word to describe this piece of silliness. Do not waste you time.
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond back with a bang as Craig dazzles
mark-whait25 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The problem with the longest running franchise in cinema is that after nearly half a decade, originality should be in short supply. After nearly 10 years playing James Bond, Pierce Brosnan was allegedly dropped due to contractual problems (i.e. he supposedly wanted more money than the producers were prepared to give) so in comes Daniel Craig. Certain Bond aficionados were audibly heard groaning with disbelief once Craig was announced, but anyone who has followed his fledgling career since the days of Our Friends In The North a decade earlier would not have had any concerns. Craig is arguably the most talented 'actor' to take on the role of Ian Fleming's legend, and coupled with an incredible physical presence, is easily the best Bond actor since Connery. And it is here that Casino Royale wins hands down. Craig reportedly did a lot of his own stunts, and, just like Connery, he has the pumped up physique coupled with a touch of elegance that makes his Bond so believable. The numerous hand-to-hand combat scenes are thrilling and totally convincing. Going back to Fleming's original source material is also a canny idea from the producers - let's face it some of the Brosnan story lines were getting frankly ridiculous (ice palaces anyone?), and not even the late great Cubby Broccoli tried to take on this novel in his heyday - probably because the David Niven spoof was around at the time. This is a tremendous entry into the Bond annals - fast paced, stunning and absorbing. Throw in the raw theme song of Chris Cornell's 'You Know My Name' and the irresistible Craig and you have the best Bond film in 20 years.
8/10
Enjoyed it as an action film, not so much as a 'Bond' film....
lotus_chief13 October 2007
I enjoyed myself watching Casino Royale. But obvious problems just couldn't prevent it from being a true Bond film. The very logic of some things just stood out. For instance, this film takes place before all of the others, like a prequel to the other Bond films. Yet I see cellphones and people text messaging throughout the film, and mentions of 9-11! I understand people saying that they have to cater to today's market, but with a source material so rich and with so much history; I personally have a problem when movie makers feel the need to and essentially FORCE a "modernized updated, today version" on an audience when the very story is supposed to take place before the countless other Bond films, the first one made in 1962 based on a book written in 1952.

Aside from that, I can honestly say that Daniel Craig has indeed breathed life into the Bond character itself, as Pierce Brosnan's version was horrible. I liked the look back into the character's history and how he came up; showing that he was indeed not the silky-smooth, 'perfect' spy that we've come to know him as. This Bond film is a more subdued version compared to the other; its more straight-up, which I really liked. A good action/spy film? Yes. As good as a Bond film? Not particularly.

8/10
9/10
Shaken, and stirred.
farfromperfection17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not a huge Bond fan, that I will admit right from the start. I was dragged to see many of the Bronson films in the mid-90's to satisfy my Mum's admiration of said actor rather than to enjoy it.

I managed to secure a preview of "Casino Royale" thanks to my housemate; I'd seen a few trailers thanks to the Ford and Sony adverts and thought I'd go along for the hell of it.

When Daniel Craig was announced as the new James Bond, I was indifferent - Personally I was bored of Pierce Bronson's character - by all intents and purposes he resembled a "good" Bond but like many have said before me, towards the end the gadget reliance and cheesy lines had become tiresome. So I was looking forward to an entirely different incarnation of the Bond we know and love.

I was mocked as a woman going into the film under the impression that I was watching the title for the pure anaesthical reason of Craig, which I will not deny was easy on the eye. But the film is so much more than that.

Gone is the sequences that relied heavily on the gadgets provided in the preceeding Bond's - this was a gritty, high impact film that focused very much on an attitude and ego to overcome the odds. Craig fits the Bond status perfectly. He took the script and ran with it - the fight sequences are fantastically shot and dealt with without the need for invisible cars and the other guff Bronson's character had issued.

The relationship Bond had with M really complimented the film - Her reluctance to let him continue in the role after the Embassy cock-up was followed throughout the film; at the start M wanted his head on a plate, and by the end she was ready to place him in the next mission.

The scenes with Vespa (played brilliantly by Eva Green) were entirely believable. I was mildly concerned to see a Bond become so attached but it was for the right reasons. Although Bond is the sort of character that is a "shag em and ditch em" guy, the relationship with Vespa, although predictable was scripted and acted fantastically. For those saying Eva Green made a "poor" Bond woman because she wasn't the "atypical" type, that's just crap. Vespa was beautiful in a very unassuming way, which was wildly different from the likes of Denise Richards and Halle Berry.

The arrogance and egotistical attitude of Bond, played perfectly by Craig made the film. Suave and sophisticated, but gritty and rough was a good combination and something I felt the preceeding Bond's never properly grasped. Casting Craig as Bond was the best thing the franchise could do to perk the interest once more.

I give the film a healthy 9 out of 10 - a point knocked off simply because my arse was aching by the end - at 144 minutes although I wasn't bored, expect numb buttocks and for the love of God, get a seat with leg room to enjoy the film at it's maximum potential.
8/10
Finally, a worthy bond movie
shekhark46 September 2008
Saw it yesterday for the nth time and thought of writing my first review on IMDb. I was very skeptical, like almost everyone else, when they chose Daniel for the new bond. but when i saw the movie in theater it completely blew me away. Daniel is not a typical 007, He sweats, his clothes are lets say not bondish, he doesn't fixes his tie while somebody is shooting missiles at him. but still he pulls of the bond. Sean was perfect, and pierce was too perfect, but Daniel's strength lies in the fact that he has to try hard to portray bond, and it shows. hats off to this guy. Best bond ever in my books.

Eva excels as bond girl, finally a bond girl has something to do in a bond movie. and boy is she pretty! i had started to get the feeling that bond girls are only for catwalks, bikini scenes or Christmas jokes.

The stunts and chase sequences will keep you on the edge of your seat. Action is more down to earth. Don't get me wrong, i really love high octane action, blasts, missiles, submarines, fighter jets. But the action here will generate more adrenaline rush than any other bond movie. A must watch.
9/10
Best Bond, in the world, EVER!
Spaceygirl28 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Casino Royale" has to be the best Bond movie ever, starring the BEST BOND ever! Daniel Craig is outstanding as Bond, silencing all the naysayers. He lends Bond depth and character. It's so refreshing having a real actor portray the super-spy. Mr Craig makes Bond seem real, with actual flaws and emotions. Brilliant! The Bond Girls are the only let-down, Eva Green is UGLY and Caterina Murino an AWFUL actress, but this is the only flaw that the movie has and I'm willing to forgive, mainly because of Daniel Craig's performance and the appearance of Jeffrey Wright, one of my favourite actors. Well done to the producers too, for taking the Bond Theme song back to Britain, where it belongs. Chris Cornell has written a great lyrics to "You know my name". Fabulous.
4/10
Not like a regular Bond Movie ....
ssri118 December 2006
An okay movie with a few thrills here and there, but certainly unlike any bond movie that I have seen so far. Daniel Craig is really suited to be the next "Bond", he has the elegance and the body for a Bond. But unfortunately the storyline is really bad. In the movie, bond is tortured, nearly killed and hit many times. In all these situations, he needs help, cannot escape himself. This may be how a real person is, but when you go to a Bond movie or Superman or Spiderman, one would expect that the hero can recover from these situations. Other flaws in the movie are a weak villain, and also that the fight is all about 100 million dollars. Again, when we see a Bond movie I would expect either a world saving plot or a plot that involves a villain who is ruthless, powerful, and stinkingly rich whom the normal man cannot touch ! This villain in the movie is really weak, acted excellently by Mads Mikkelsen, but the role is really weak. Latter part of the movie goes in the Poker Game, so, much less action. Bond's car (like Batman's Batmobile) is really underutilized. All that they show in the movie is that glove compartment opens, like the one I see in a regular car. I expected some missile, parachutes etc. from the car, however it is a regular car in this movie! The chase using bond car opens with high expectations, but unfortunately Bond, being the weak character that he is in the movie, crashes the car and gets caught. There is no mention of the Bond gadgets too in the movie, looks like Bond is almost on his own and not connected with "M" anymore. Unlike most bond movies, Bond loses his girl in the movie ! I think bond has built a reputation in the past and he did not live up to that in this movie.
6/10
Slightly disappointed
krabbit13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some friends and I went to see this flick last night. This movie is supposed to be Bond's first adventure as a 00. Despite, for being his first adventure it's set in modern times with modern devices and vehicles. This throws one for a loop when trying to figure out the time-line in conjunction with the previous films. One thing that I look forward to most in Bond flicks would be his bad ass gadgets. Of course, these were pretty much nonexistent in this movie. Sure, he has a cool car (only through the last 30 minutes of the movie) and a mini defibrillator. But, that's about it. Speaking of the last 30 minutes of the movie, what in the hell was the director thinking? This movie was 2.5 hours long. However, I found myself getting antsy in the seat after 1.5 hours. I was ready for the movie to end. There were more twists in the last hour of the movie than a M Night Shamalamaringworm film. The director could have EASILY cut this movie down by At least 30 minutes and still had the film flow properly. Ugh, my ass still hurts from watching it. Despite all of the director's shortcomings, the acting was superb. Daniel Craig played a perfect bond. The chemistry between Craig and Eva Green really made for some emotional moments. Mads Mikkelsen portrayed a perfect evil villain. It's pretty sad that the director botched this film with his indecisive way of movie making.

I give this movie a 6.5/10

((If anyone wants to import this movie into a movie editor and trim the movie down to 1.5-2 hours, I'd easily give it a 7-7.5))
10/10
Fabulous but different Bond movie
hacness20 November 2006
I loved this movie! The thing is, you almost can't compare Daniel Craig with Connery, Moore or Brosnan (in my humble opinion, those are the three that are worth mentioning) and it's really tough to compare "Casino Royale" to the previous Bond movies, except for maybe the most recent Brosnan films. Technology is different of course, and they can do so much more with these movies these days, which makes them almost a completely different type of film than the films from the 60s-80s. And Daniel Craig was so different than any of the previous Bonds, and I loved him! I think this is great since this is really a prequel to all other Bond movies and James is portrayed as more rugged, less refined and of course, more prone to becoming emotionally attached to women. Then when you think about Connery, Moore and Brosnan playing the part after he has been around the block a few times, you can see why they were so much more refined than Craig's Bond and have anything but an emotional attachment to women. Craig is more of an Indiana Jones type, the kind of guy you expect to be killing and beating the crap out of the bad guys. What's fantastic about the later (really earlier) Bond's (Connery and Brosnan especially) is that they were so refined and didn't look at all like dudes who could kill and kick ass the way they did. Obviously this refinement came from years on the job and Craig shows us what Bond was like when he was first let loose. And of course, every Bond movie has to have the ludicrous opening scene where Bond is chasing the bad guy and kicking his ass in mid air after jumping out of a plane, or on skis, or whatever... but the mandatory, ludicrous beginning chase/ass-kicking scene in Casino Royale blows them all away! Great Bond movie! Probably my favorite, although I do feel a little bit like it's not fair to compare this movie with the earlier Bond movies, they are really not even in the same ball park. Craig is an awesome new Bond! This movie also had a couple unexpected twists and some great action scenes strategically placed in the middle of what non-poker players probably didn't understand (myself included). It was really the first time I felt pity for the Bond character, the first time I really felt emotion well up inside me because of something that happened in a Bond movie. As always, it was a great mix of humor and action, but Casino Royale also added the drama aspect, which is usually absent in Bond movies. Also we did without most of the cheesy one-liners, which I know are an integral part of any Bond movie, but I can't say I really missed them.
10/10
Loved It! Daniel Craig Is Best James Bond Yet!
mcilhany11 December 2006
This movie had me gripping the sides of my chair pretty much all the way through. Opinions of who's the best James Bond will vary from person to person, that stands to reason, and I've loved all of them. Up to now my personal preference remained with Timothy Dalton even though I've always liked all of the James Bonds. But what I can say for Daniel Craig is: this guy is wild! Passionate, very hardy and tough. Somewhat of a change from the cool suaveness of Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig is a rugged, highly athletic man-of-action image for the new James Bond, and I think it's great. To be honest, as soon as I heard that he was receiving criticism, before the movie even began filming, I just had this feeling I'd love him. I'd already seen some pictures of him by then and the way I envisioned him in this role is pretty much exactly how he actually was.

He's everything we want James Bond to be. Funny, confident, charismatic in a way uniquely his. His version of James Bond, like all the more recent ones, has a sensitive side too, which will appeal very much to the modern woman. This movie should certainly appeal to all types of James Bond fans due to all the action, creepy bad guys and beautiful women. Eva Green is absolutely beautiful, very unique beauty, and Mads Mikkelsen who I'd had the prior pleasure of seeing for the first time as one of Arthur's knights in "King Arthur", plays an extremely convincing villain in this movie. A new Felix Leiter gets introduced, and there's a lot of cute original stuff that puts this movie in it's own class.

Can't say it enough, it's a great one, and I can't wait 'till the next one comes out. Love you Daniel Craig!
9/10
Bond back to the beginning....
hemant_balz26 March 2010
Casino Royale stands out for me as the best movie i have seen of all James Bond movies.Probably because all other movies were old but still this one had everything.Action,drama,sex,suspense and then the new bond Daniel Craig.I never thought he would be a worthy James Bond.But this movie and his performance has proved me wrong.Great thriller kind of experience.Lot of intriguing fighting scenes.More of a swashbuckling action packed James Bond rather than a gadget helped man.The poker game was sensational.It had everything beauty of Eva Green,wine,showdown with Africans & charm of James Bond.And the chicks.They were exceptional.Eva Green looks stunning & Ivana Milicevic looks pretty hot.The ending is very good.The movie for me never looses tempo.Money & Time rightfully spend for this.A movie worthy of seeing in theater.Bond is back but he has to start again from the beginning but still it is great.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great job
cotandreea28 July 2020
I think that both Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell did a great job, because it involved a lot of action, romance and drama and it showed. Also the supporting cast was awesome. Congrats guys!
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Totally New Direction
ianrthompson15 November 2006
I have just returned from seeing Casino Royale and have had a thoroughly enjoyable evening.

Last year when Daniel Craig was announced as Bond I have to admit, I had my misgivings. I was all set to join the ranks of the Craig-haters and try to lobby for the return of Brosnan (then my favourite - and there's your first clue).

There is no way that Brosnan could have pulled off this film (Sorry Pierce), this was Daniel Craig's moment and he has proved himself to be an excellent Bond. The reboot idea is fantastic and the opening sequence is truly awesome. The film has some great comic moments but the best thing about it is the gritty realism. Bond bleeds, he fights hard, he even looks right in the tuxedo.

The film does have one or two gadget heavy moments which do let the film slip from a 9-10 star to an 8 star for me. But on the whole, I loved the step away from gadgets.

Long live Daniel Craig as Bond!
10/10
Bond is back
rh8615 January 2007
After the CGI led, bloated Die Another Day, the Bond Producers realised that they needed to give the series a fairly big kick up the backside. Luckily by now they had the rights to the book that started it all off, Casino Royale. The movie sticks pretty closely to the book while updating it for the twenty first century. The centrepiece is still the tense card game, which even if you know nothing about the game (or like me are just rubbish at it), still keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Daniel Craig got a fair amount of crap when he was cast as Bond but not only proves his detractors wrongs, he blows them out of the water and gives them a broken nose in the process. He is arguably one of the best Bond's since Brosnan's debut and Sean Connery, matching charm and raw power perfectly. Bond's girl is also another breath of fresh air. Eva Green's (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven) Vesper Lynd is the first Bond girl in a long time to actually have a proper relationship with him and she is more than a match for him in charm and wit.

No Bond is complete without its diabolical villains and for this we go back to the book with arms dealer Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who unlike Blofeld or Dr No, actually has real world plans by funding terrorists. He's also probably he first villain to actually give Bond a real scare in a very brutal torture sequence taken straight from the book.

Martin Campbell previous directed Brosnan's debut, Goldeneye, which at the time was promised as the return of Bond. Hopefully the huge process made with Casino Royale won't go to waste over the next films.
7/10
Worthy heir to the Bond franchise
brian_r_wright28 March 2007
Casino Royale with the new James Bond (Daniel Craig) starts with an exhilarating chase scene in an African-port construction site. Bond and his prey dance about the cranes and building columns like Spidermen or the swordsfolk of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

If you're afraid of heights, you may want to avoid these first full 15 minutes of death-defying jumps and rumbles on high steel. The camera pans out over the ocean with these tiny men in the foreground shinnying up greasy cables, surrounded by empty space. I felt twinges of vertigo combined with fear of falling.

Craig is the most physical Bond we've seen, and the most capable of tough-man-competition-like violence...

For my complete review of this movie and for other movie and book reviews, please visit my site TheCoffeeCoaster.com.

Brian Wright Copyright 2007
8/10
Casino Royale ups the ante
dkncd14 October 2007
"Casino Royale" represents a fundamental shift in the James Bond series. After the mediocrity of "Die Another Day" (2002) the producers of this film decided that the series needed an overhaul. I've enjoyed other Bond films, and I liked Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, but after "Die Another Day" I welcome the changes to the series.

Daniel Craig is the new James Bond. He still injects some of the conventional Bond humor into the role, but overall plays him with a harder edge. Craig gives a solid performance and successfully reinvents the character. The film tends to linger a little too long on Craig's shirtless body at points, but that's a minor complaint. Eva Green plays Bond's female companion Vesper Lynd. She creates an interesting, sassy and intelligent character. I only wish she would take off some of that eye makeup. Admittedly I was always ambivalent about Judi Dench's semi-antagonistic style as M, but she gets better as the film progresses. Unfortunately Mads Mikkelsen is not compelling as Bond's rival Le Chiffre. His acting is fine, but the character never amounts to more than a generic villain.

At first I was disconcerted by the fact that this film blatantly contradicts the timeline established by other Bond films, but I accepted that this film has a new timeline for a new Bond. Many of the conventions of Bond films are missing: there is no Moneypenny, no special gadgets and no cars with missiles. While these elements were effective in Bond films of the past, I didn't miss them here.

There are still plenty of action sequences, and they were well-done even if the first one is overlong. The film's poker scenes were staged with enough tension that they didn't become boring. A welcome change in this film is that the plot is more rigorous. The series' answer to the tedious story of "Die Another Day" is more ambiguity and plot twists than the usual Bond fare. There have been more interesting Bond stories, but it's a good answer none the less, and I look forward to seeing future installments in this new Bond timeline.
8/10
Mixed feelings, mostly good though
gloves193113 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I enjoyed the movie. I'm actually shocked to see the 1's and 2's in the comments being posted. I can see why die-hard bond fans wouldn't agree with this prequel on some aspects(a few problems marred the movie), but on the whole the film's point is to show how bond became bond. It does a pretty good job.

The good: WAY more realistic fighting, dialogue, believable stunts, and most of all bond seems like way more of a badass (although some would argue thats a step in the wrong direction). The movie does a great job of explaining why bond never wants to fall in love again. I'd be pretty upset if I saw my lover drown in a cage I couldn't get into.

The bad: They ruined the gun barrel sequence in the intro, bond messes up too many times, plot holes everywhere, surprising amount of product placement, the overly long poker game...
10/10
Bond Deconstructed
cdjh-8112530 December 2018
James Bond is a classic franchise to me, I grew up with it and have loved it for as long as I can remember. Casino Royale isn't the bond film I necessarily grew up with but given how different and darker it was from any other film that came before I think it was better that I waited till I was older to watch it. Casino Royale is one of my most respected Bond films and to date remains my 2nd favourite in the franchise (right behind Skyfall)

The first thing to talk with about this film is Bond himself, Played masterfully by Daniel Craig in an amazing performance. Seeing him in a vulnerable state and a less experienced character made him a lot more investing as character and made it seem less cinematic and more of a grounded portrayal. Daniel Craig was the perfect choice for this new iteration, his performance was some of the finest acting in the 50 year franchise in a variety of scenes that require him to play the character at his best and worst. He's be bond for as long as I can remember and it'll be sad to seem him leave the role.

The tone was also something I loved about this film. The lighthearted as more carefree bond isn't really a character who I want to see in a modern setting and I think this more grounded portrayal was exactly what the character needed. Martin Campbell's direction played a large part in this, he creates the films perfect tone with his restrained touch that allows the actors performances to breathe and allow the action sequences to be clear and easy to behold. Like many other things in this film, the directing is some of the series best.

The films also sports an excellent supporting cast. Vesper was an excellent love interest and one of played of bond perfectly. It was very easy to believe the bond that the two characters come to share all thanks to the excellent writing and perfect chemistry between Craig and Green. Mads Mikkelsen is one if today's best actor and one who is born to play a villainous role. He manages to exude confidence and a real threat level with very little dialogue, managing to convey it all through his eyes and slight movements. Despite it being a reboot I'm so glad Judi Dench remained on as M, she's the definitive version of the character and plays of Craig in a way no other character can.

Casino Royale is a love letter to bond while managing to be a completely different experience than any other entry in the series. The complete reinvention of the character was exactly what the series needed and made Craig an instant fit for the role. It made Bond more of a cohesive franchise with more of a character at its centre. It's one of my favourite action films and one of bonds best films.

10/10 - A+ (Incredible)
9/10
Made Me Like Bond Movies
nospam-14727 November 2006
I've never liked James Bond. I always thought he was the WORST spy ever. What kind of idiot spy uses his real name at the front desk of his enemy's front operation? This Bond at least gave himself an excuse for this particular behavior.

But for me, Daniel Craig reinvented the Bond we know in the films. I've never liked 007 because I thought he wasn't actually good--- just lucky. You knew he was a top agent because everyone said so, not because you saw him do anything particularly great.

But in Casino Royale you saw a hero, an assassin with cunning and determination. No pretense at being a deep cover spy, but an agent who can use intrigue to accomplish a mission.

Sure, Bond is different here. But you can believe he is the same guy in the later films, and this (being a prequel) actually lends credibility to the previous incarnations of Bond that they used to lack.

I look forward to watching the next Bond film--- something I have never been able to say before.
10/10
Dry martini? Give me a damn pint.
joestank1517 November 2006
Casino Royale Casino Royale - A modern version of the beginning of James Bond's career. Think of it as "Batman Begins" to the James Bond movies. C'mon, it's not that difficult a concept to grasp. And if you still can't, there are still pretty explosions and people getting killed to distract you from thinking.

The character has changed actors 6 times; he's become more of an archetype than a human. And that's where this film really shines. We see the transformation of a very skilled (and very flawed) James Bond in the rough and watch him evolve into the suave martini sipping agent that can do no wrong.

Of course, this would still not be a very good film if not for a portrayal of James that's second only to Connery. Daniel Craig gives a superb performance. Through all the gadgets, cars and cheesy world domination plots we've lost the cold hard fact that James is ultimately an assassin that happens to be working for the good guys. He has a wicked sense of humor (and Craig really delivers those one-liners), a pension for violence and aggression, and does not give a damn for sophistication. He is given his first formal mission: foil a poker game that funds terrorism. Nothing ornate, and just as well. After the Goldfinger film I could not give you an in-depth account of any of the Bond film plots. They've always been a sidenote to the girls and the toys, but some solid scripting and plot work was done on Casino Royale.

What I loved best was that Bond made mistakes. The man has not fully found himself in the work yet. He shot a hostage and blew up an embassy when tracking a bomb maker. His first kill is anything but suave. He does not always have an escape plan. And he has not yet learned the whole "love them and leave them" thing that became a trademark of the series. My favorite scene may be when he comforts Bond-girl Vesper (Eva Green) in the shower (and no, not THAT way) after one particularly intense dispatchment of the bad guys.

I could go on, but the gist of it is that if you've seen the other Bond films, you'll get great satisfaction out of this one. If you haven't (small chance) you'll still see one hell of an action/suspense movie. The fights and chase sequences are top-notch and the supporting cast is well played. Eva Green and Judi Dence both give fine performances, while Mads Mikkelsen under-acts his way through playing Bond villain Le Chiffre, to decent effect. But the real show is Daniel Craig.

Craig haters, you can stuff your gripes even further up your asses. I give the film an A.
5/10
Casino Royale
marcoscotlar29 December 2006
I didn't like it a lot but, the other ones were cool.In 2008 the new Bond movie will come to movie theaters. But Daniel Craig is cool i hope the new movie will be a lot better than this one.I didn't like the begging of "Casino Royale".But the ending is a lot better because they have the James Bond theme song.Its about the starting of how he Becames 007. Its not a movie for kids ages (5-10), but it is for James Bond fans. "My name is Bond,James Bond".There are some Violince and Sex parts. Its not for people that don't believe in God to much. Its 144 min, made in USA, Checa Republica,Uk and,Germany. Some Pepole thinks it has a good rating in Argentina,too
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
More impulsive, rougher, more brutal, more exciting, with a word: better
samuelsson9110 December 2008
More impulsive, rougher, more brutal, more exciting, with a word: better than any other Bond- this is Casino Royale. Pierce Brosnan does not miss in the film. Daniel Craig made out of Casino Royale one of the best action movies ever. He also explained that Bond does not have to have every situation under control and he also makes mistakes, so he is a human like we are… Do not expect any “super toys”. James is only at his beginnings and in his job he is a new one. Of course, he gets a car, but he damages it in the first corner. This would not be as big financial problem as the destruction of a house in Venetia. Eva Green did a great job in performing and she looks really beautiful in the movie. I liked the typical Bond's “woman dialogues”. Especially when he meets the banker (Eva Green). I did not like that Casino Royale's story is stacked together. Many different stories are put together just to fulfill the time limit. Otherwise if you like, or do not like James Bond, you should definitely watch this one!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Surprise from a new Bond with more emotion
noizyme25 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Short and sweet...I loved this addition to the Bond characters out there. Although he's no smooth-looking guy, Daniel Craig gets his business done and out of there. There was more humanity in this Bond character than I remember seeing in past films (he makes constant mistakes, he finds romance more possible in this film). he of course has the cool cars and gadgets, but the director strays from over exhausting them this time around and focuses on the story at hand.

There was a ton of double-crossing in this one, which was a snag at times to remember what to think about each character, but in the end, it works fairly well. The titles were awesome looking as ever, but I wish they could've overlooked Chris Cornell to sing them (with his hound dog yelping of notes). The scenery and images in each land were magnificent as always, and somehow, the director managed to make a good time out of a long game of poker (for non-fans of poker tournaments like myself, I found it pretty bearable).

In the end, 8 stars. I think it would work out great to have Craig show up in another in the future of Bond stories, but I wonder if he should regarding his decision around the end of this one....we shall see.
7/10
It's...good...
Tkbn381221 January 2018
I hadn't watched any Bond movies other than the most recent Spectre, and I decided to go back to Daniel Craig's first outing as Bond back in 2006. Quite honestly, I enjoyed the movie, just not enough.

Casino Royale sees James Bond get his 007 status before going on a sinister mission to take down a man running a ''high-stakes poker game'' that has been betting against big world corporations.

Honestly, I enjoyed a large part of the film. The first half of the film is enjoyable, quality, smart action that breezes by you spectacularly. I highly praise both the chase in Uganda and especially the airport scene. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a matter-of-fact, smug agent for this half of the movie (and, actually, the entire movie really).

It's just the second half of the film that really gets too drawn out and confusing for me. James Bond goes to Montenegro with Vesper Lynd, going to participate in the poker game with Le Chiffre. Everything after this becomes slow and drawn out. Honestly, I would be fine with this slow pacing, except the whole plot felt a bit confusing for me. Maybe I'm just dumb, because this movie got universal acclaim, but it just felt like too much at times for me.

That's not to mention that this movie is 2 hours 20 minutes, and for the entire last half hour I was just waiting for the movie to end. The best of the action is over by about the one hour mark in my opinion, and the entire remainder of the movie just feels boring. The little action that is left is, albeit, good, just not enough.

Okay, so this movie doesn't need to just be non-stop action; that would be unreasonable. But the casino scene is just boring for me, which was a shame since it takes up a large part of the second half of the movie.

Still, I digress; Casino Royale is a good movie. I enjoyed every bit of it, even if not the second half as much as the first half. Daniel Craig shines as James Bond, and the film is visually stunning. I have high hopes for the entire franchise going into the future. Maybe this film didn't wow me as much as it did others, but I still thought it was a good, enjoyable movie.
Great Rebooting Of the Franchise After the Laughable Die Another Day
John_Q_Citizen10 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig stars as the 'new' James Bond, and 'new' it sure is! After chasing down a Spinder-Man like African bomb maker, Bond thwarts a large airbus being destroyed. The man behind the bombing, 'Le Chiffre', used this event to bet against the stock market for the particular avionics company. Unfortunately, though, he lost a lot of money.

Now his employers are after him. His last resort is to enter into a high-stakes poker game taking place at Casino Royale. Bond's assignment is to play against Le Chiffre and to out-bet and win the game.

I would like to put more into my summary of the plot, but I can't without giving too much away. Because this, unlike some other Bond films, offers twists of a truly surprising nature.

When Daniel Craig was announced as the new actor to play Bond, naysayers and die-hards went into an uproar. 'But he's blond!' they would shout. 'He's too short!' would be another excuse. I will admit that I was skeptical when I first heard the news over a year before release of the film. But over that year, the idea grew on me. I had seen him in a few other films, and realized that he would be a good, if not great actor to portray the hard-hitting double-o.

Needless to say, I was not disappointed with the producer's decision. Craig is THE perfect tough guy to play in the role of Bond. He is the Chuck Norris of Britain. I will go as far to say that he is the best Bond since Connery.

After the mess of a Bond film that they call 'Die Another Day', it was obvious that this franchise needed a drastic reboot. If you watch the parachute-surfing scene in DAD, you know exactly what I mean. I'd say that the producers and the director Martin Campbell sure did one hell of a job and delivered on their promise.

Naysayers and even some general critics claim that the poker scene in the film drags on for way too long, and that the film is poorly paced. I can see where some of their criticisms come from, but I thought that the poker scene offered some real tension between our hero and our villain. Not to mention the fact that if Bond loses he is financing terrorism.

People also criticize the running time--and I can see that too. Clocking in at two hours and twenty four minutes, it is the longest running Bond film of the franchise. But I don't mind long movies, especially when they have something to offer.

Overall, a better, badder, more human Bond. One of the best movies I've seen so far this year.

9/10
8/10
Bond is back..better than ever!
maveric_7415 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thank God for Martin Campbell/Daniel Craig/Broccoli combination..I had been aching to see this and besides a few things, this movie absolutely brought back the Bond franchise to life! I remember seeing the old Bond movies as a kid with Sean Connery and Roger Moore and then seeing the re-invention with Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan..Whilst the old Bond movies are undeniably classics, the re-invention didn't grab by attention. Dalton was too wooden and despite GoldenEye's success, the franchise truly disintegrated into a poor caricature of itself..bottoming out with the truly awful tripe with Halle Berry..can't even remember the name, to be quite honest!

And now, Casino Royale! It's hard, it's brutal and edgy and Bond is not as sophisticated as yet and it shows and that to me is amazing..He's still learning the ropes, making mistakes but shows glimpses of why he's the best MI6 have got! I thought Daniel Craig was fantastic! Probably not the prettiest Bond or the most suave, but definitely realistic, intense and charismatic..But then again, I have been a fan since Enduring Love and LayerCake days, so perhaps I am biased?

Absolutely loved the first half of the movie! The initial black and white opening, the free-running sequence, the airport sequence etc.. were fantastically staged..The lack of gadgets also meant that this time around Bond had to rely on his skills and his street smarts and that gave the movie a realistic grounding. Le Chiffre was also a great character..not menacing, but you knew that Bond had a adversary every inch his equal, at least in street smarts and poker playing skills!

The things I didn't like in the movie: Le Chiffre was killed off but not by Bond, and quite abruptly and simply..I would have liked a better end for Le Chiffre..But then again, I haven't read the book so I cannot really say much about Le Chiffre's death in the movie..

The romantic angle with Vesper Lynd puzzled me at first but as I thought about it more, I realized what they were trying to portray..I may be wrong, but this is my opinion..Bond did really fall for Vesper Lynd, that much is there for all to see. Here he is, a hard-edged, cold-blooded killer and he is probably in love, real love, for the first time ever in a long, long time. He wants it to be real but she screws him over, for whatever reason that it may be..He gets hurt, loses her and probably vows never to love again coz now he knows the pain of losing a lover and in his job, getting close to someone could kill him! You see Bond at the end talking to M and he has a hard look in his eyes when talking about Vesper Lynd..He was betrayed and he's never going to let that happen again..I thought the romantic angle played out too long and the movie was around 20 minutes or so a bit long, but I walked out of the movie theater absolutely amazed! Was this the same franchise that gave us Timothy Dalton and the last two Pierce Brosnan Bond movies that I cannot even remember? Wow! Please don't ruin this franchise..I hope they retain the brutal, edgy, dark undertone running throughout the movie! And Daniel Craig, kudos! If he keeps true to his Casino Royale Bond portrayal, I have a feeling he could be the best Bond ever..after Connery :-) No, no one will ever beat Sean Connery..Too suave, too cool, too sophisticated, too much! Enjoy and prepare to be dazzled!
8/10
He'll kill you.
Pavel-89 December 2006
In a cinematic world that is so often disappointing, a flick that knows its target and hits it squarely is always a welcome sight. Enter "Casino Royale", the 21st and latest James Bond movie., featuring Daniel Craig in his debut as Agent 007. Because all Bond movies feature essentially the same parts, the differences arise from the quality of those parts and how they fit together, so allow me to examine the pieces...

Story: "Casino Royale" begins near the beginning, as Bond became Bond, earning his license to kill and diving headlong into the espionage world. This automatically adds depth and interest to the plot, because origin stories are almost always interesting (see: "Batman Begins"), allowing for explanations of various Bond trademarks. That part of the plot is very good. As for the main storyline, it's about par for the course. There are the mandatory jaunts to beautiful locations like Miami and the Bahamas, and the flick pleasingly manages to avoid the high-tech gimmicky nature that plagued the recent movies. The centerpiece of the movie is a high-stakes poker game, and while I liked that, I wonder what non-players thought of those scenes. Being a poker player, I was able to call virtually every card, but that didn't erode much of the enjoyment, because Bond movies aren't renowned for their unpredictability.

Villain: Meh. Mads Mikkelsen isn't given much to work with as Le Chiffre, a upper-class money launderer who affiliates with terrorists. Sure, he looks creepy, but that's about all we learn about him. The lack of a classic villain has been a major weakness of the recent Bond movies, and this one is no different. Without a memorable story or bad guy, "Casino Royale" was forced to rely on other avenues for its quality. That was risky considering this is Daniel Craig's first turn as Agent 007. Fortunately...

James Bond: Merely from the trailer, one could see that Craig brought different elements to Bond, and those glimpsed traits erupt into full view as the picture rolls. He doesn't quite have the suavity of Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan, but more than any other Bond portrayer, Craig is physically imposing. He could kill you. He has an attitude that adds a modern hard edge to the Bond prototype, one that still oozes sexuality despite the dearth of the puns and double entendres that had become too ubiquitous in Bond movies lately. This is an installment more physical than any other, so both of those additions are very important and greatly appreciated.

Bond Girls: The best Bond girls always have a more exotic look than the women that often dominate American cinema. There are two main female roles here; the Italian model-turned-actress Caterina Murino is a classic Bond vixen, exactly what you'd expect of an Italian model-turned-actress. Her role is secondary to that of Eva Green's (Kingdom of Heaven) Treasury agent Vesper Lynd. Her beauty doesn't leap off the screen early, as her character's bookish side dominates, but she later vamps it up with varying results. Sometimes she looks like a teenager girl playing dress-up, but when she tones down the glamour, she fits the mold well, if perhaps a little too understatedly. (Yes, it's a word.) Gadgetry: The number of gizmos in "Casino Royale" are toned down significantly from prior versions. While they are missed in a nostalgic sense, they aren't missed within the context of this movie, because of the different action scenes, which segues nicely to...

Action: The action scenes are infused with a physicality that sets this one apart from any of its predecessors. The black-and-white pre-credits sequence is a superb intro that has an indie feel, and the first extended chase will leave you exhausted in your seat. Bond is frequently bloodied and bruised as he He bleeds, and you feel it. That's a good thing.

Many have said that "Casino Royale" reminds of "The Bourne Identity", a comparison that is understandable but slightly misguided. While the gritty look does call Bourne to mind, the overall tone is much more elevated. Bond is not an everyman like Jason Bourne; he wears a tuxedo and dabbles in high-stakes games of poker and espionage in which the fate of the world is on the line. That creates a loftier feel that makes potentially mundane scenes (and the entire movie) better and more enjoyable than they should be.

Bottom Line: It's a Bond movie. And a pretty good one. A convenient 007 of 10.
10/10
Excellent
pswanson0011 June 2007
Giving a film such as this a vote of 10 may seem like a stretch of standards, but Casino Royale is absolutely perfect for the genre, so what else could I say? Daniel Craig is the quintessential Bond, surpassing my previous favorite -- Sean Connery -- for adherence to the nature of the character (with acknowledgement of Timothy Dalton's fine effort). Eva Green is also great as Vesper, and Judy Dench is...well, her peerless self.

I appreciate especially that the special effects in this film are there to aid the telling of the story, not as a SUBSTITUTE for a story, which they are in so many modern movies. As in most 007 films, the locations are magnificent, almost becoming characters themselves.

I look forward eagerly to the next installment, not leastly to see what the filmmakers do with Jeffrey Wright. He's much too good an actor to have been hired to lean on a table and utter 4 lines, and I can't wait to see how his character develops.

Rent this film. It is real entertainment.
8/10
Casino Royale
film_riot1 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig's first attempt as James Bond led to a very good action movie, much different from the last instalments of the series, in a better way. Craig is so great here, he doesn't only play the running, fighting and shooting convincingly, but also the more quiet scenes. And in those scenes lies the secret of why "Casino Royale" turned out to be much better than its predecessors. James Bond isn't the killing machine with no doubts and second thoughts, he makes mistakes and has to pay the price for them and if someone dies because of him he feels guilty. The second amazing contribution to the movie's success is made by Eva Green, who has the thankful role of a Bondgirl that's unlike all the others until now. She and Craig in the train share the best scene in the movie, an amazing dialogue for which I only can congratulate the writers. Martin Campbell's direction is pleasantly unobtrusive, although the film is not without flaws.
3/10
Bond Bomb
melissa-glover22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not sure what movie the other reviewers saw because this movie was terrible. The action sequences were fantastic, but the plot was muddy. It started while chasing a suspect, but the reason wasn't fully explained. Then while on "vacation" he starts pursuing another suspect, but you don't know why he has started the investigation. When you figure out the bad guy the plot of the movie turns to reclaiming $150,000,000.00. That is a pretty insignificant mission for Bond. Then 2hrs into the movie the bad guy dies, but the movie isn't over by any means Another bad guy pops up, but who he is or what he wants is not revealed. I gave this 3 stars because of the action scenes, without those I would only give it 1 star. Sorry, but this is a rental at best.
10/10
surprisingly great play
bigrobert4 September 2008
Yes, I am also a James Bond fan. Fan of its character, its stories, its success, its danger. First, let's talk about the actor. I will not make comparisons, all actors were great, at their time. Daniel Craig is also great as James Bond. Before the movie, some forums were shouting that Craig is an embarrassment for the movie, and it will ruin the charm. Shamefully admitting that I knew nothing about Craig, I began to think "what if it's true? What if I won't like the movie? It will be a disaster!" Well, my doubts were all shattered. CRaig is great as James Bond. And, as other users said here, the movie shows very well his fine tuning, from a beginner 00 agent to the 007 we know. About the movie, the script is great, it has everything in it, blended in a good recipe. Danger, glamor, beauty, suspense, fight, force and so on. I am really waiting for the next movie, and sincerely hoping that Craig will remain at least as long as Brosnan. We all know that no well known actor would like to remain forever just a character. So, for now, let's all enjoy Craig's great play.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
...and the list is rewritten ... again
xlars25 November 2006
The new list of Bond's are now: 1. Sean Connery

2. Daniel Craig

3.Pierce Brosnan

4. George Lazenby

5. Timothy Dalton

6. Roger Moore

A good Bond. A Great Bond. Surprisingly good. Cynical. Raw. Macho. Just like Bond ought to be. In pace with Fleming's Description. Real Bond.

Isn't it funny to think about, though, that the poorest of the ULTRA-British Bonds - is the British one? Until now, that is. The rest has been Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Australian...

Yeah! Bond is back! And he is back with murder in his eye!
10/10
Royale Flush
paul_oates17 November 2006
Finally got round to penning my review of Casino Royale. I saw it on Tuesday 14th but its taken a few days to collect my thoughts and put them together, simply because you cannot review Casino Royale as 'another Bond movie'. It is clearly the most important Bond movie since Live And Let Die, when the producers took the decision to find a serious replacement to Connery. Gone are Q (well, he died anyway and was replaced by a man who only used to be funny), invisible cars, CGI surfing, villains with big laser beams and girls who comment on how 'frisky' Bond is.

One hack in his review of Casino Royale commented on how great Craig was compared to Brosnan who was just "a fat ageing gigolo in a rented tux" which I thought was unnecessarily cruel, but after watching CR I have to admit the guy may have a point. Craig may have blond hair, be a bit short and, for some reason, looks like John Nettles in one scene but he is undeniably the best Bond since Connery, in fact he may well be the best Bond ever. He combines the serious acting credentials of Dalton (in fact he's a better actor than Dalton even) with the athleticism and panther like presence of Connery and brings his own sense of brutality to the role. Bond has never been more dangerous.

It was about 10 minutes into the movie I realised how important this really is. Bond, trapped in an embassy with an errant terrorist he has been chasing, needs to find an escape route. Roger or Pierce would have resorted to a handy gadget and either blow a hole in the wall or cut through the floor with a laser beam but Craig simply grabs this guy by the cuff of his coat and throws him head first through a plate glass window, leaps after him using the guy's body as a crash mat as he falls 20ft to the ground. He then half drags him across the ground to his escape point. The terrorist, who five minutes earlier was the coolest hardest free-running bad guy seen in years is reduced to a whimpering wreck by the sheer brutality of this new Bond. This new Bond is clearly so much more dangerous than before, but equally because of that we realise that Bond himself is in much more danger than before - Something later emphasised in a vicious torture scene.

Some people are commenting that this film doesn't feel like a Bond movie. To some extent they are right. If what constitutes a Bond movie has been refined and set in stone over the past 20-30 years, then no, it is definitely not a bond movie. But consider Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and OHMSS. For the first three there was no real formula (it was Goldfinger that set the formula - so Goldfinger is similar to the others, but at the time it was an original). They were all clearly spy thrillers with creepy villains, a dangerous but suave leading man and a girl in tow but each film stood on its own. I think Casino Royale fits perfectly with that group. The core basic elements are there but are not presented in the way we would expect given the past 30 years. What I think is most disorientating is that this is the first film since OHMSS that is actually about James Bond. Its focus is on how he handles events, how he reacts, how he responds to people. The audience has expectations of how he should react and that he doesn't react in that expected away and the following focus on that is unusual.

This Bond is much, much closer to the books. Many of the more 'domestic' scenes at the Hotel Splendide, the recuperation section, the scenes in the Bahamas and the seduction of Solange are all completely new to the film Bond but are straight out of the books.

Curiously the Bond theme makes no appearance until right at the end, but I did not miss it. It's triumphant anthemic qualities would not have worked, as it reminds us of an superhero safe from anything the villains can throw at him, which is not what this film is about So, it is the best Bond movie in years, and potentially ever - but only time can prove that
8/10
Bond Redefined Again
Hussain-AL-Naseer8 April 2020
Daniel Craig playing "Bond, James Bond" drew controversy when he was succeeded by Pierce Brosnan as many thought that he was not the adequate choice. At the time of releases Casino Royale broken all its previous Bond movies box office record not only that but all critics praising Craig's portrayal of Bond. The films tops my list for Bond series till date. Well directed and articulated by Martin Campbell especially the Poker sequences at Casino, The film is total Lit. Craig's performance is the highlight of the movie he impresses well as Bond, his intense look, the attitude the Charisma he possessed as an Agent was the USP of the movie. Fight sequences, Cinematography and camera work all added their contributions to create a visual masterpiece
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I expect a lot from a 007 film...
kasseric26 March 2007
Accepted, that I expect a lot from a 007 film. But sorry, this film did not deliver. Had this not been a James Bond film, I would have given it a 6 or so.

The actor has no charm. This is a statement from my wife. She said she wouldn't go to bed with him --- oh my, this is James Bond. Every woman must want to go to bed with him! (The good thing is I wasn't jealous after the film). Moneypenny must have felt the same way, as she was absent from the movie.

No cool technology. No Q. The tech-industry watches for Q to know what next to develop next. I guess we can expect nothing new in stores after this film…

Where is the world class super villain? All we were enticed with was a small time banker who enjoys torture.

Was there any suspense in this film, except who would die next?

Simply compare this film to the previous - don't.

... Eric
10/10
Best Bond since OHMSS
demoneyeslaharl15 November 2006
Finally, a Bond movie worthy of being called Bond. It was the only movie that got me totally interested in Bond movies and books.

After further examining and watching the movie, I have finally concluded that this was the Bond that I have been waiting for since watching Connery's best performance "From Russia with Love".

Casino Royale is the story of Bond, who just received his double-o status, and his license to kill. This is a reboot, and knowing as such, people who complain why its set on 2006 and so on and so forth should just watch Batman Begins. This is a new Bond, set in the present time. No more agent for the Cold War, but the post 9-11 agent.

Craig is an amazing actor. He's got a hard face, but he can display emotions freely, subtle changes of expression. I was never bored watching how his face worked everything up. From his wooden parts in the poker scenes to the cringe inducing moments which involved a rope knot and a bottomless chair, he was entertaining. Since he plays a rookie double-o, we don't see much of the smoothness that Bond had established before, but we can be sure at the next movie, he will be. Especially after the last scene.

Eva Green is another excellent addition as a Bond girl. She may not be a total looker, but she is hot and played smart. She and Craig had good conversations (which imho, was natural) and had good chemistry, especially towards the end. Her last scene was also quite eerie and moving.

Mads Mikkelsen played a cool, level headed, yet conflicted bad guy. He was confident, a bit egoistic, but when he was confronted with difficulties, he shined. He made Le Chiffre unlikable yet understandable. Wish there were more bad guys like that. Less of the old how to conquer the world ploy, and more on being motivated on a personal level.

The story itself was complex yet simple. It may not be something easy to understand at once, but after a while it gets to you. I won't spoil any of the plot stories here, but if you have difficulty following, a second viewing is a lot of help. The direction was quite good as well... the action was never non-stop. It was entertaining, and quite jumpy at times (especially since it comes with a good score). The action plus storytelling was balanced enough, though you may feel the length at times.

Since this is "Beggining of Bond" story, it lacks all those gadgets from Q... there were only 2 tools Bond seem to use in the film. His gun, and... well, its a spoiler if I say it. 3 tools, if you add the car, and this is a welcoming change to the overblown gadgetry that was involved in the last few Bonds. A Bond without a gadget is a much more entertaining Bond because he'll have to depend on his wit other than some well placed gadget to get him out.

This is one of the most excellent Bond movies since the sixties. Reccomendable to any people, whether literary or movie Bond fans, or just casual ones. This isn't your run-of-a-mill action movie. Its deep and moving. Its not perfect, but in the future, it will be considered as a classic.

Bravo EON. And Bravo Mr. Craig. Lets hope Bond 22 will be better.
9/10
The beginning of the franchise...
donniedarko1320 November 2006
I hate Bond. I hate James Bond. I think he's fruity, unrealistic and boring. I'm not one of those guys who enjoy Bond movies because I like my film a bit more gritty and raw. All this BS with gadgets, hot cars, women who open their legs automatically, cheesy one-liners and going up against an army of 50 men with one bullet makes me sick. YEAH RIGHT! I can't stand Bond. It has no soul. He has no soul.

When I saw the trailer for Casino Royale, I was already a huge fan of Daniel Craig since his early days in Road to Pertition. The trailer itself looked phenomenal. It had my attention right off the bat. Easily one of the coolest trailers of the year too.

I saw it opening day and I was impressed. I also love the fact that so many people are appreciating this movie. It's filled with action and emotion and some intense scenes, including the poker all-in moments. I can't believe the very few who are completely disregarding this movie for being more realistic.

For starters, this is the beginning of how Bond became Bond. It's not a sequel. Therefore, this is really the story of Bonds first mission and how he fell in love for the first time. I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it.

Secondly, the fact that Bond is vulnerable and takes a beating and gets bloodied up makes it that much better.

The action scenes are done with class.

All in all, I can't imagine what the next Bond movie will be like following this epic adventure.

To me, James Bond was dead but now, finally reborn and it's earned a new fan and a great amount of respect.

A-
7/10
Big and stupid - but with ATTITUDE. The best bond in absolute ages.
teh_mode17 November 2006
The bond franchise returns with a tougher, darker and blonder hero in the form of Daniel Craig. When asked if wants his dry Martini "shaken or stirred?" he replies "Do I look like I give a damn?" It is nice to know that even when the franchise has got to the point of being self-referential, even those little remarks are typical Bond quips. Casino Royale shows 007 right at the very beginning of his MI6 tenure, even before he has achieved "00" status. A crooked banker by the name of Le Chiffre (Mikkelson) is attempting to raise money to fund a terrorist organisation by playing in a high stakes poker game at the Casino Royale. MI6 sends Bond out there to play against him, knowing that if Bond wins, Le Chiffre's organisation will collapse. He is kept under surveillance by the sultry, yet equally austere agent Vesper Lynd.

Casino Royale is a revamp of the Bond series in the same sense that MI:3 was a revamp of the Mission:Impossible series. Everything is noticeably tougher, particularly Bond, himself, who is catering towards the image that Ian Fleming originally envisaged him being – tough is nails, and twice as dangerous. Daniel Craig is well adept at playing psychopaths and crazed bad guys, and his incarnation of 007 has no issue with kicking the living daylights out of his enemies, as is painfully displayed in the opening sequence of him repeatedly smashing some poor sod's face in. He slyly smiles when a terrorist is blown to smithereens by the bomb he attached to the hapless assailant, and murders a bomb maker, when all the surrounding circumstances suggest the best thing to do is drop his weapons, and swallow his pride. But this isn't what our cerebral assassin is meant to be anymore. He's an unflinching killer – the antithesis of Roger Moore. Gone is the light-hearted cheese, and back are the scars. The film is also a lot darker than previous incarnations. There is the infamous torture scene, sure to have any bloke in the audience writhing in their seats with discomfort. And many a plot twist to keep our audience guessing. We even get a glimpse of character depth, as James' career choice is put into perspective for a more substantial existence, even if the ensuing twist sap a lot of the film's momentum.

Yet when all is said and done – this is still Un Film a la Bond – complete with all the throwaway clichés common within typical Hollywood blockbusters. The bad guy's guns never have any bullets left when they finally get to shoot the hero, Le Chiffre is typically rich and surrounded by goons all the time, and the circumstances that MI6 come up with in order to capture him are just completely ludicrous – the way to stop terrorism is to beat terrorists at poker? Terrific. There is never a dull entrance in a 007 film; we are introduced to our first Bond girl, as she rides across the Bahamian beach side on horseback of all things. Nor is there a dull location, as Casino Royale travels through the tropical terrains of Uganda, the familiarly glorious site of London's skyline, the beautiful beaches of the Bahamas and Montenegro for that infamous card game. But even if it is typically empty-headed – this isn't as issue with James Bond. The 007 franchise is meant to be hyperbolic and super-realised. We are not meant to relate to our protagonist, but just be impressed by his dead-cool, icy persona. And boy is Casino Royale cool at times. Those who yearn for some sort of psychological depth to our hero will be disappointed, as will those thinking that this movie at any point attempts to make an intelligent film. What is refreshing about Casino Royale is does not conform to the CGI network imposing itself over modern Hollywood cinema. The action is riotously good fun, and we get stunts galore as well as real explosions and old-fashioned criminal chases, as Daniel Craig literally smashes through walls in Martin Campbell's movie. It is certainly tougher viewing than recent offerings, such as Die Another Day (2002), which was much more concerned with Halle Berry than it was with James Bond. But this is, in effect, a continuation of the things that everyone associates with 007: beautiful girls, fast cars, glorious locales and plenty of explosions. Darker, tougher and more faithful than previous Bond incarnations, Casino Royale is nevertheless an ephemeral experience. If you want a fresh approach to the spy genre – try the Bourne movies. If what you are after is purely empty-brained, head-cracking action, this delivers everything it promised, if not more.
8/10
A solid reboot of the franchise
RCWjr19 November 2006
It would seem that reboots of long standing franchises are the in thing now. James Bond gets the reboot and in the process, saves the series from becoming a joke and sets it up to be relevant for another 20 films.

Those that moaned about Daniel Craig; shame on you. Craig brings a flash of Connery, while maintaining his own identity within the famous Bond persona. This bond is someone to fear. With his ice cold eyes, Craig is able to stare down any man and pull in any woman. If that is not a lethal combination, I don't know what is.

Gone are the absolutely over the top antics that were becoming a staple of the films. There is very little extravaganza, with more emphasis put on hand to hand combat (which Craig showcases a power than none of his predecessors had, both in his bulked up body and the absolutely rage to his fighting).

With the sense of reality being played up, that doesn't mean Bond is without the style, flash and charm which is a trademark. Craig easily slips from casual attire to the famous tux with ease. There are the ladies, the cars and though not a showcase, the gadgets which make Bond, well, Bond. Also, there is no shortage of beautiful locals. Even when Bond is in the hospital, it overlooks a vista that is breath taking. So there is plenty of the flash for the fans that look to this franchise for.

The opening walk with shot aimed directly toward the screen is given a great update as well as the final scene in the film lets you know that James Bond has been "rebourne" (purposely playing on the "Bourne" titles there).

I could go on and on, but rather than keep reading this, go out yourself and experience the film for yourself.
8/10
Favorite Bond Movie
saifmohammed13 November 2013
I liked watching Bond movies, but during Pierce Brosnan's era it was less reality. In Casino Royale the franchise has taken it to a whole new level. Exotic locations, flawless acting, and my favorite storyline. Casino Royale is more factual and more realty separating it from any other Bond movie. Action sequence are great and Daniel Craig was the ultimate choice for Bond in it.The whole story is beautiful and the ending makes people crave for more, although picked up smoothly from Quantum of Solace but lost its charms a little.I really thought the ending wasn't what I expected. All in all this movie is a must watch even if you aren't a Bond fan.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The BEST and the WORST Bond movie ever,....
serefina9 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale really annoyed me.

On one side you've got a decent cast doing a fine effort to bring the story to life, Daniel Craig doing a really good, if not quite hard edged enough for my taste. (Hey, Bond is supposed to be a womanizing ruffian, and Craig just doesn't come across as being that right kind of mean,... yet) Judy Dench did seem to be 'phoning it in', but only when you compare it to her career highlights, she's still the best M by far. I just wanted her to be more forceful with Bond - M should be the only woman besides the Queen that Bond would behave around. Eva Green was gorgeous, though her suit on the train seemed to hide her figure too much, so when she appeared in 'that' dress at the casino, and then again at the respite home after the torture session, she suddenly seemed to have 'blossmed',....

(Died scratching my itch,.. bwhahahaha,.. and I imagine 'Owwwwwwwww'.)

Then there was the bad side. Some biggies stand out. First there's that fugly largest plane ever - c'mon, don't you think we'd recognize the body of a Boeing 747? and the dual engines (which were running but not sucking the ground crew in?) And FUEL PODS??? on a passenger plane WTF??? Ask an engineer what happens to the wings when the fuel gets pumped in and out, let alone the loading waaaay out on the most stressed part of a plane. And then there's the fuel shifting about and stuffing up the balance inside the airframe - there's a very good reason that 747's have their main fuel tanks in the body, under the main wing.

Then there's flipping the Aston to save Vesper,... The laws of physics can tell you why that was wrong. Vicki8 Butler-Henderson from 'Fith Gear' can tell you what happens to Astons if you reef the steering wheels too hard,. The producers can explain where the Astons airbags went,. I'm sure Ford and Aston-Martin would like to know.

CPR,... Bond is an ex British Navy Submariner, trained in lifesaving techniques,... so why wasn't he doing CPR compressions over Vespers heart? And why did he grope her right tit in the process, (Though I wouldn't mind being,..... okay I'm bad)

And in the same scene, when Eva Green's body reacts to being fondled by a hunk, why the hell wasn't it re-shot without the nipple poking up the material??

Then there's the standout frak up. In the last scene, before we see Bond, we hear a large bore rifle shot and see the baddie collapse,... So why is Bond holding a sub machine gun with a SILENCER!!!

Look, I enjoyed it, I'm just very disappointed that the film-makers didn't make it better in the little bits that would have made this movie go from being 'just another bond movie' to an Oscar winner.

Serefina Moon, opinionated film fan.
8/10
Good Fun (7.7)
jacksisjax7 October 2020
I started this movie with very low expectations. My notion of James Bond movies is just a shallow, shell of a story to accompany bland action sequences. I think i picked that up from Quantum of Solace... But no this movie was actually pretty good, it had a well constructed, rather smart story line accompanied by a pretty stellar script. Not to mention the cinematography and color grading is also quite nice. Daniel Craig is a serious man, he knocks it out of the park as James Bond. It was a thoroughly entertaining, movie full of twists and surprisingly good action sequences.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond Begins
alpha12830 November 2006
"Casino Royale" attempts to do for James Bond what last year's "Batman Begins" did for the Dark Knight. For the most part, it succeeds.

Although the twenty-first film in the long running 007 series, "Casino Royale" is based on Ian Fleming's first novel. This film aims to reboot the Bond franchise by stripping it of its tired formula and returning the character to his literary roots. It introduces Daniel Craig as the coldest, toughest, and most ruthless Bond since Sean Connery's 1962 debut in "Dr. No".

Despite the new lead actor and truer to Fleming approach, there are some curious throwbacks to the old series. The most obvious and perplexing is the return of Judi Dench as M. This is supposed to be the first double-o mission for Craig's Bond, yet he reports to Pierce Brosnan's old boss. Why the filmmakers didn't recast the role with a Bernard Lee (who perfectly embodied Fleming's M) type is baffling and creates a paradox between the previous series and the new one.

The film has a lengthy prologue before Bond actually reaches Casino Royale, meaning both the location and the book's plot. While this section contains some exciting action scenes, it's hard to follow and somewhat superfluous. Here Bond is piecing together who the terrorists are and what they're up to - the kind of thing a briefing in M's office would usually tell us.

But once Bond receives his orders to go up against the villain Le Chiffre, the film really kicks into high gear. For the most part this is Bond as Fleming wrote him. Bond is tortured as in the book. The violence is realistic and appears painful. James Bond probably loses more blood in this movie than in the previous twenty combined.

By the film's final scene, Daniel Craig proves the naysayers wrong. Daniel Craig _is_ James Bond, and the best since Connery. In that final scene he's not only wearing the same kind of three-piece suit Connery wore in "Goldfinger", he's also doing a damn good job of filling his shoes.

8/10
10/10
Arguably the greatest Bond film ever
gothamite2719 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film is a reboot of sorts. After the clichéd 'Die Another Day' in 2002, with its plethora of explosions and ludicrous gadgets (the invisible Aston Martin really pushed the meter), the producers decided to do away with the bizarre, fantastic and conspicuously repetitive trappings of the traditional Bond film and start again, focusing on the character and the plot, rather than weird and wonderful gizmos and set pieces. Basically, the aim of this film was to bring Bond into real life.

And by God, how it succeeded in doing just that.

The film opens without the traditional gun-barrel sequence and instead starts with a eerie, film-noiresque black and white sequence, showing Bond doing away with a rogue Mi6 agent.. It is apparent from the very start that this Bond is fairly different to the Brosnan version and is willing to kill callously. The title sequence is great as it drops the semi-naked CGI women, in favour of a more sinister montage of cards and a very cool animation of Bond fighting hand-to-hand.

The film is gripping, throughout. It is one of the first films I have been to in a long time where the fight sequences were very tense and organic and I was unsure whether or not the hero would make it out. The plot jumps around a small bit, but not too much to annoy the viewer. I often worried that the low-key plot of the novel might out-date the film, but the filmmakers worked around this, expanding the novel and giving it a modern edge.

In terms of acting, this is easily one of the best 007 films around. Daniel Craig is simply marvelous as Bond and makes him very three-dimensional. In this film, Bond is not the all-knowing, all-powerful secret agent he was in previous films. Bond makes mistakes in this film, and spends much of the film dealing with these mistakes, growing into the agent we all know and love. Craig personifies this perfectly and it is difficult to envisage Brosnan performing some of these very dramatic scenes. Eva Green is a very competent Bond girl and shares real chemistry with Craig's Bond. The fact that she is not cavorting around half nude like many Bond girls would, helps the audience to take her seriously and understand why Bond would actually fall in love with this woman.

If there is any problem with this film is its shameless use of product placement. It is wrong to say Bond is without gadgets in this picture. Sure, he doesn't exactly have the laser-watch or the exploding key chain, but he has just about every real-life gadget Sony makes. Bond or another character is shown using a Sony Ericsson in most scenes and Sony laptops, Mp3 players and any other whatnot the company could throw in are in full view throughout the picture. It takes away from the realism of the film, when every character has the same brand of telephone.

Anyway, this is a bold and brilliant Bond film, with a fairly perfect star. I find it difficult not to call this the greatest Bond film of them all. Go and see it.
9/10
Not the usual 007
dparan20 November 2006
Casino Royale is no ordinary 007 movie. For someone who has developed a distaste for James Bond movies over the last few years where plots are predictable, women are easy and the climax unrealistic; only my intuition guided me to buy the tickets. Verdict? It was worth every cent!

Finally, the producers have made 'James Bond' realistic. I never thought I'd live to witness such a feat after 'Batman Begins'.

Daniel Craig delivers an extraordinary performance where you cannot help but want to believe that he really is James Bond. Director Martin Campbell is genius in actually being able to envelope an aura of mystery behind 007's character and pulling off believable on-screen chemistry.

In short, Casino Royale is not only an excellent James Bond movie, it is an excellent movie, period!
9/10
Casino Royale review from Rajan Laad a big Hollywood watcher
pondybaba20 November 2006
well i thought the movie was very very close to Ian Fleming and in some cases made slight improvements. i thought Daniel Craig was a terrific bond made me forget abut the rest while i was watching the movie. he reminded me of Dalton in his realistic portrayal of bond, he also according to me is the most dangerous and unpredictable bond since Connery. i can imagine this guy being a ruthless killer. pierce seems like a pussy cat in comparison. he much like Dalton displayed the moral dilemma of a spy also the insubordination with M.

the movie had a great beginning and went on very well especially the poker game and the twists. i still do feel that the film could be chopped by 30 minutes to make it more compact but i really am not too sure which parts should have gone . Eva green played the very complex vesper to perfection, since i had already read the novel i was analyzing her performance and she displayed the right proportions of moral conflict and duplicitous-ness. she also displayed a tenderness and vulnerability of a women caught in a web of deceipt. the villain was also very good for a change he wasn't some crackpot with an outrageous plan of 'world domination' . but by an large they managed to mix grit with fun and a great bit of casting in Daniel. all in all they were better than all the Brosman films.

so i give it a 4/5.
8/10
Royale Casey Yes Royale
xbrad6817 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is an interesting film. After the implant is put in 007 he becomes the antiBond, grabbing Ladies by the arm and calling one a bitch. The twisted individual who influenced the writing thinks that there are no consequences to Her actions and that is a fallacy. In the film the Queen by way of comparison it says that the Royals put duty first, well they are ultimately in charge so this is a euphemism for Honor. Imagine getting a core battery of Psych tests from the Queen in person. I told my Auntie that someone has to watch the Children and I meant it in a positive way as in relatives genuinely caring for their older and younger relatives. the wheels on Bonds bicycle or wheelchair as its also known represented Ian Fleming bicycling to save a German steel factory and peoples lives in 1945 Germany. The Windsor Royal Family are still Hanovers it says so on my Birth certificate. The Fleming bikin hinted to buy a new King James Bible and a Kennedy book. The BK for British Knight and the KB for Kennedy Bastard since my Grandmother is the illegitimate half sister of President Kennedy. Of Course President Kennedy is no bastard and I meant no offence to my Great relative. Both books are for my Daughter God Yahweh Apophis Julia AR Morgan in the real Moonfleet orbiting Earth probably via Computer scanner and transmission. For those of you who think I am delusional consider six degrees of separation games. There is sometimes a high road that few people can see and a true cross at the end and beginning. Real Double Ohs have know kills ever for as King Henry V said the gentlest gamester is the surest winner. Thank you to IMDb for allowing the kind of freedom of speech that President George W Bush, Jack Kennedy and I support. Support IMDb.
9/10
James Bond has been reinvented again.
samseescinema17 November 2006
Casino Royale reviewed by Sam Osborn

James Bond has been reinvented again. It's time for an origin story; stepping away from the embarrassing previous film, Die Another Day, and going back to roots. In Mr. Brosnan's shoes now is Daniel Craig, a blonde beefcake with carven features and a stony countenance. He's tougher than Brosnan, and less afraid to get his shoes soiled. He doesn't speak much; his mother apparently only taught him sly comebacks and cheesy pick-up lines. But Mr. Craig is a brusque, youthful version of the Bond we've come to be used to. He's flawed and overly confident, but ineffably charming. Put simply, he'll do.

His villain is Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson)--I suppose any Bond film isn't complete without an idiotic name for its villain. Le Chiffre has a demented left eyeball that's appropriately scarred over and that intermittently bleeds to give the effect of weeping blood. He's lost $100 million of his clients' (terrorists) money in a botched stock market sabotage. He now must put his prodigious poker talents to work so he can win the $100 million back before the enraged terrorists take revenge.

Funding Bond's buy-in at the high-stakes poker game at Montenegro is the Treasury agent Vesper Lynde, played by the illustrious Eva Green. She's not your typical Bond girl (read: she's not a slut). A lot of fuss has been made over the romance that glows between Bond and Lynde, remarking mostly on how much of a sissy Bond would be if he would actually fall for a girl. And he does. For the most part, the love story is handled smartly; but near the end, as the love story blossoms, it quickly becomes too bubbly and sappy for even me (I gave three stars to The Devil Wears Prada for goodness sake). This isn't to say Ms. Green isn't up to snuff, however. On the contrary, she's the best thing that's happened to the series since Pussy Galore. She has acting chops and a face more beautiful even than her body. A more suitable actress could not have been chosen for such an important entry into the Bond series.

And so I guess the question on everyone's mind should be answered: Is Bond back? I'll admit to not truly knowing. The days of Sean Connery were before my time, and their recreation on DVD is simply not the same. Bond flicks must be experienced in the present, I suppose, and judging a Bond without the hordes of fans clapping and yelping around you just doesn't add up. But, at the very least, is Casino Royale an improvement over the campy dregs of Die Another Day and the Pierce Brosnan series before it? Well, it thankfully isn't as silly. Die Another Day heightened all the delicious implausibility to ridiculous heights, to the point where the requisite absurdity of a Bond film became distracting. Casino Royale manages here to toe the thin line of camp and quality. The Bond formula hasn't changed; there are still villains who weep tears, girls with big breasts bobbling on galloping horses, lots of machine guns, and acrobatics that rarely adhere to the laws of physics. But Bond doesn't surf a tsunami, as he did in Die Another Day. Bond has returned to glamour and class. The film is strong and adventurous, spanning the globe with bullets and a body count. It's long (144 minutes) and has a sweet tooth for sentimentality. All the elements are here and, perhaps, any Bond film is only as good as the sum of its parts. But I suppose that isn't true. There must be an energy that powers the whole thing; a defibrillator to shock all the parts into place. Director Martin Campbell applies this current liberally, and makes Casino Royale beat with a vicious pulse. It's entertainment of the very first order; meaning that anyone and everyone will have a bloody good time. So, yes, Bond is back.

Sam Osborn
8/10
Broccoli is right
stingler20 November 2006
I would not call myself a Bond aficionado, but I have seen all the films, many of them woefully more than once thanks to American television. I'm guilty of the worst of all foibles of Bond fans: I grew up with Sean Connery's Bond, and believed no one could replace him. That is until he replaced himself in Never Say Never Again. Lazenby appeared, for lack of a better word, "uncomfortable." Moore was dramatically two dimensional at best. Dalton had moments in Living Daylights. Brosnan alternately refreshing and annoying. I did not hold much hope for Daniel Craig. I was wrong. While brilliantly cold and merciless, as one has come to expect from the Bond mythology as it has been lifted from Fleming's pages and transposed to the screen, Craig's Bond demonstrates a believable sincerity and vulnerability. Frankly, I was taken completely by surprise. His reading may not be true to all of Fleming's character, but his is more appealing than any Bond I've seen. Period. To the "Craignotbond" clique, I must say I couldn't disagree with you more. As I left the theatre, I was unable to suppress a shiver as I admitted to my companion that the franchise had definitely scored with this Bond. Barbara Broccoli is right. Craig is Bond.
9/10
Daniel Craig Succeeds where Dalton Failed.
edwardrevans7 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is Bond, James Bond. OK this is Daniels first outing as Bond and he has given the role something completely different to what has gone before, Dalton tried this by added a darkness and edge, but in my opinion his films are not worth another watch.

1.The cheesy double double entendres have gone. 2.The Gadgets have been dispensed with, along with Q. 3.The Violence is realistic, Bond gets battered, bruised, blooded and tortured. 4.The Mega rich super villain has been dispensed with, we now have a regular guy who just tries to manipulate the stock market to allow him a multimillion by in to a high stakes poker game.

Taken from the mold of the Bourne Films, Casino Royale has a full on Hardcore action sequences, builds a back story as to how Bond gets his 00 status and why he treats women as disposable items.

Daniel Craig has Beefed up and smolders on screen, with just his look in certain scenes he doesn't have to say a word, his face tells the cinema goer what he thinks and feels.

The fight and action scenes are more realistic no longer does James Bond, emerge from a scrape freshly tailored without a hair out of place, just watch in awe when Bond steamroller's through a plaster board wall.

The only criticisms I have are

1.Heavy product placement 2.the film is 20 minutes too long.
10/10
My First Bond Film
ianmorley-8041113 February 2019
There is no better first movie to watch than this one. I first saw it two years ago, and I have been a Bond fan ever since, and will be for the rest of my life.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is the best James Bond movie I've seen ... and I've seen them all.
techspec25 November 2006
Until now, I have always touted Sean Connery as the best James Bond ... no more. Daniel Craig brings something needed to the role ... a sense of reality.

At the beginning of the show, Bond is involved in what I would describe as the most exciting foot chase I have ever seen. This movie chronicles how James Bond became 007. There are really no outlandish gadgets in the movie; everything comes across a "possible".

One of the things that makes this Bond believable is that he is not pristine throughout the movie; he's cut up, bruised, and tortured. Though the original Casino Royale book would have taken place decades earlier, this movie initiates the series in the current day. It even incorporates the current "Texas Holdem" fad into the plot. Bond's famous coolness and aloofness is explained very well in this movie. From now on, you will never watch a 007 movie with the same eyes.
10/10
Enjoyable movie
ioanvuscan29 October 2021
Daniel Craig and Mads Mikkelsen were great in this movie. Good story and the action is engaging. The characters are really well developed and the villain was pretty realistic. Overall, nice movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Craig, Daniel Craig is excellent as James Bond
colonel_green27 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
All in all, it was a very good film. Daniel Craig was excellent as Bond, although I do miss Pierce Brosnan a bit (he did a great job of making Bond a serious character, even if the scripting didn't always back him up).

After the perceived excesses of the more recent Brosnan films (fans keep coming back to the invisible car), things are heavily scaled back here, with no Q, and almost no cool gadgets. The fights are, to quote Thomas Hobbes, "nasty, brutish, and (not really) short." The highlight is a stairwell showdown where Bond struggles to fend off some machete-wielding villains and keep Vesper (Eva Green) out of harm's way. Green, who, as anyone who has seen "The Dreamers" can attest, is stunningly beautiful, and probably my second-favourite Bond girl (after Michelle Yeoh in "Tomorrow Never Dies").

Since they've got the origin story down, I hope they don't keep people like Q and Monneypenny out of future installments just to "be different." There were practical reasons in this one, since neither has much to do in the novel, but they're important parts of the films. This whole film was sort of a lead-up to the unveiling of Craig as the "Bond as we know him," complete with theme song, so I'm not concerned.

I know nothing about poker beyond some of the terminology (straight flush, full house, etc.), but the exposition from Mathis was a bit of an embarrassment in an otherwise low-key film. I don't think the filmmakers needed to explain what "all in" means to the audience.
9/10
Best Bond since Roger Moore
almey28 November 2006
IMHO, Daniel Craig IS the best Bond since Roger Moore. (if not the best Bond ever) And Casino Royale is finally, finally a "real" Bond Story again. (it's a Ian Fleming story after all) It takes about 10 minutes of screen time to get used to the new Face of James Bond... but after that time you can't but like him.

The Movie itself is action packed, fast, and brings back the Humour I was missing in the last few Bond-Films. The lack of "High-Tech" Gimmiks which were quite overused during the "Brosnan" era makes the Movie fresh and very believable.

I gave it a 10/10, but take one star away because of excessive Product-Placement. "Ist it a Rolex?" "No, OMEGA..." *rolleyes*
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
My personal favorite Bond film of all time!
theonewithallthecontacts13 November 2012
After the Bond films had went everywhere they could, it started to become a little cliché, and the last Bond films began to be boring and over the top. Especially Die Another Day tried to capture the essence of the previous and better Bond films, and failed so dramatically. Maybe that is why EON and the producers went and waited 4 years to decide where the next Bond film should go, and who should be the next James Bond. Over 200 names on a list was considered to play the part, and eventually Daniel Craig was cast. Martin Campbell returned as a director, after previously having directed the masterpiece GoldenEye. EON and the producers eventually decided take Bond the only place where he hadn't gone... back to his roots. The producers had only recently acquired the rights to Ian Fleming's first novel "Casino Royale" from 1953. This novel should have been the inspiration for the first Bond film, if the producers had the rights at the time. They eventually went with Dr. No. The idea was a delightful refreshment to the Bond series, and the film proved to be a hit. It grossed 596,4 million dollars worldwide which was the highest for any Bond film ever, was one of the most critically acclaimed Bond films in years and it won a BAFTA Award for best sound. The fans however were divided into those who think it ruined the Bond series, and those who think it saved it. I'm 100 percent with the latter. The old Bond movies were gone and would never resurface, so why make more dumb movies trying to be as good as the first Bond movies. Okay, here goes:

The movie stays expertly close to the novel, with some other fascinating sub-plots, as international arms dealing and terrorist organizations. One of the best things about this movie is the plot. It's so intense and interesting, that you'll never be bored. The poker scenes are one of the most interesting and well shot scenes i have ever seen. I also love the plot because it doesn't include over the top villains hell bent on world dominance, invisible cars, laser watches, cheap jokes or lame visual effects. It's a straight up cold, spy thriller which brings back the essence of Dalton's films and the first Bond movies. I love it, and I think it's what the Bond films have been missing. The film also have one of the best action sequences i have ever seen. One of the best free-running chases ensues with Bond and a bomb maker named Mollaka and the film also includes a masterfully shot car chase scene in an airport. The choreography of all the fist and gun fights is top notch and one of the best action scenes I have ever seen. The world record for a car rolling over also features in this movie. The incredible thing about the movie is that all the stunts have actually been done. No lame visual effects. The movie found a pretty good balance between action and plotting.

Daniel Craig as Bond is the best and coolest James Bond ever put on the screen, in my opinion. He's the first since Dalton to approach James Bond as a human, and not a super hero with quick jokes. And while Dalton was good, Craig is better. He gives Bond more emotion and depth than ever before, and he earned a BAFTA Award nomination for his performance. Overall, Craig is in my opinion the best and coolest Bond ever, and that includes Sean Connery. Eva Green is a great Bond girl, and if you stay to the continuity, she is the first REAL Bond girl. I liked her as she is beautiful, a great actress and has great chemistry with Craig. Her character is also given much depth and emotion. One of the greatest Bond girls ever. Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre! Now I'm from Denmark, so I remember all the attention that Casino Royale got because of two danish actors portraying villains: Mikkelsen and Jesper Christensen. Much were made about if Mikkelsen could make a decent Bond villain, and it turned out he could. I'm not just saying this because I'm from Denmark, but he is one of my favorite Bond villains. He created a character that was creepy, greedy and realistic, beating out the previous actors, that had played Le Chiffre. This for me defines him as one of the best Bond villains ever. Jeffrey Wright plays Felix Leiter in this movie, and while he's not my favorite, he sure as hell did a good job. Giancarlo Gianinni plays Bond's contact René Mathis. Gianninni is a great actor, and could read a phone book loud, and still make is sound charming and cool. He's a lot of fun. Jesper Christensen as the mystical middleman Mr. White. I love this character because he's so mysterious and memorable. He isn't given much screen time, but that suits the character. Isaach De Bankolé has an appearance as the leader of the Lords Resistance Army. He also creates a scary and memorable villain. Judi Dench returns as M for the fifth time and does a fantastic job.

Martin Campbell's direction is flawless and brilliant. For me he creates the greatest Bond film ever. The cinematography and sound is also brilliant.

Overall, this film is for me the best Bond film ever. If you want to watch a Bond film with the same feeling as From Russia With Love, this is the film with you. However, if you liked Die another Day this probably isn't the movie for you.

10/10
10/10
Must See!!
jdu3220 November 2006
This was a solid movie, and a step forward for Bond films. Daniel Craig is the best choice for Bond, and he brings it strong in this film. Although i was not opposed to a black bond, (i think one will come soon enough), a blond one is the different flavor that we are looking for. Clive Owen is the only other prime actor that would have held the character, but Daniel has more to offer in the close-ups. Besides being drop dead sexy, he is 100% Bond. You will not be disappointed by the plot, either. The villain is also a great foil for our new hero, and whether or not you like poker, you will be intrigued up until the credits start to roll. I especially liked the opening song 'You know my name' by Chris Cornell. Must see!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Whew! It's about time...
lfjeff6320 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
James Bond (Daniel Craig) must stop a banker, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who finances terrorists, by winning a game of Texas Hold'Em.

There's a lot of good things about this film, and some not so good.

First the not so good. After the "climax", there's a denouement, and another "climax". The second climax felt tacked on, as if the producers knew a building was going to be destroyed, and they thought, how can we fit this into the film? Also, the miniature scenes with the big airplane didn't look so good. After seeing the CGI effects of Spider-Man and the last Star Wars film, this effect comes up short.

Now for the good. The producers go back to the original source material. The last film that came close to using the same plot as the book was probably "Live and Let Die". (Incidents in later films appear throughout the books). This film adheres pretty much to the plot of the novel. Which is a good thing, considering the last film, "Die Another Day", rehashed elements from the other films, esp. the plot from the film "Diamonds Are Forever", and not the book.

The spirit of this film is closer to "Bourne Identity" than DAD. Bond is much much much much more believable than any previous incarnation. After a fight, he breathes hard(!). He gets hurt, physically and emotionally. He makes mistakes. Unlike any of the previous Bond films, where he was a sort of Superman in a tuxedo, when this Bond fights, he -fights-. Not like the 'one punch and it's a knockout' technique of previous movies. That same technique that was parodied so well in the Austin Powers movies where he yells, "Judo Chop!"

And the villain, Le Chiffre, is motivated mostly out of fear. Yes, he's greedy, but that's only a part of the reason why he has to win the big poker game. What a big difference from a megalomaniac trying to take over the world!

I'm so glad the producers got back to the roots and base material. The only problem here is -- where do you go from here? If they continue to keep it in the spirit of the "Bourne Identity", Bond will be around for a long, long time.
Not James Bond.
yoguss4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A very good movie, at times a great movie. But it's not James Bond. James Bond - the character - both from the books and the previous movies, has class. The character in this movie has no class. That's it. Besides, it's too physical and almost no "tricks", and a real James Bond wants it shaken not stirred no matter what. Daniel Craig is very good, but his acting and figure personify well just this character's part: no class. Just an angry, smart, physical, effective secret agent. Nothing wrong with a character like that, but it's not James Bond.

Like all James Bond movies that try to do more, by "going personal", they overdo, and they are not good Bond movies: "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", where he gets married and his wife dies, "License to kill" where he leaves the agency seeking revenge, "Die another day" where he gets captured for 18 months, expelled from service, goes solo, back in service (although that was still well balanced and Brosnan really did embody Bond's character), and then this one, "Casino Royale", where he is basically on his own and with behavioral issues. When they write a character or a story "going personal" on the Bond character, they go over the line, trying to do something sensational or different, and instead it's a disappointment. It's just not James Bond.

When are we gonna get a standard James Bond movie, with 007 doing his job against the cold war counterpart (or nowadays equivalent), to get back some piece of equipment, something that actually has to do with espionage? The last great one like that is "For your eyes only". He had to get back a decoder machine. The competitors were the Russians and the bad guys were their allies. Good love story. Adventure. Period. We need another real James Bond movie like that. Come on, writers, what are you waiting for?
10/10
The best movie of 007 ever
cezbanbelubo1 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the best movie of 007 ever. Daniel craig is the better bond without dude.
3/10
Well acted good special effects but the plot
jamie_pert20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK I enjoyed the way Daniel Craig portrays Bond and felt he added something to the character that no-one else had done before, I also enjoyed the way all the special effect were done especially the beginning chase, however what I didn't enjoy was the story line, I mean at the end of the day James Bond is supposed to be a spy / secret agent, why is it necessary to sit him at a poker table against a terrorism leader he is trying to get intelligence on, also I felt there was a severe lack of gadgets compared to recent Bond movies.

All in all i think the actors and director etc carried out the job at an above average standard however they were fighting a losing battle with the lack of thought gone into the story line.
9/10
Best Bond
Customer198924 February 2021
Best Bond film of all time. Daniel Craig knocks it out of the park. And Eva Green is incredible as well. Just all around perfect Bond.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It won't leave you shaken and stirred but Craig is inspired
The-Last-Prydonian18 September 2009
After the lame turkey that was the disastrous "Die Another Day". An appalling, camp throw back to the 70's Roger Moore era, it hardly came as a shock that then Bond, Pearce Brosnan wisely chose to jump ship. What with having two superior yet mediocre offerings preceding it. It would have seemed that the once, fresh and bold franchise was in need of an artistic overhaul. It was left to Barbara Broccoli, daughter of legendary producer and "father" of the Bond film franchise, Cubby Broccoli to rejuvenate the iconic movies. Boldly deciding to start from scratch and effectively restart the franchise by setting the latest offering back in the days when Bond had just been promoted to 00 status and sets out on his first mission. It was only natural that Broccoli would wish to adapt Bond creator Ian Fleming's first novel featuring the suave yet deadly secret agent. "Casino Royale" had only been brought to life once as a spoof comedy back in the 60's. Never bestowed the gravitas and gritty edge that it would I assume, deserved and with the controversial yet inspired casting of relatively unknown (at least to a world audience) British thespian, Daniel Craig. A decidedly more rough and roughish looking choice as opposed to the more suave, handsome stars (with the possible exception of Sean Connery) who have adopted the Bond personae.

Helmed by Martin Campbell who had formerly directed 1995's, "Goldeneye", which arguably,marked the highlight of the Brosnan era. It was safe to say that this reboot was in more than capable hands. Its plot revolving around the maverick 00's attempt to locate private banker known as Le Chiffre(a wickedly sublime Mads Mikklesen) who handles the unwieldy funds of some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. It's through Bond's relentless pursuit of the terrorist banker across the globe that eventually brings him to the Casino Royale in Montenegro. For it is here where the villain plans to take part in a high stakes poker game, the rationale being that should he win, Le Chiffre will utilise the winnings to increase the depleted funds of his terrorist clients. It is thus up to 007 to compete against Le Chiffre and prevent him from winning the competition.

From the movies more muted, grim opening which is a stark contrast to the more, grand spectacle of erstwhile Bond outings.. Director, Campbell's keen eye aids in bringing to life some breathtaking and exhilarating action set pieces. Ranging from a sublime, kinetic on foot, chase sequence in Uganda to a struggle to prevent a determined terrorist from blowing up a passenger airliner on an airport runway. It's the same expertise and energy that Campbell brought to the elaborate action sequences that have now become synonymous with the franchise. But within the lapsing intervals where overdrawn scenes are supposedly, justified for plot exposition and development. It's largely more predominant and evident within the movies scenes in the Bahamas and at the Casino Royale and sadly let's the pace begin to grate. But where the movie is elevated from the doldrums (its brilliant action sequences not withstanding) is producer Barbara Broccoli's insistence on a more earnest and dark approach to the Bond personae. Gone is the more innuendo laced one liners and nudge, nude wink, wink asides. Instead we are treated to a more restrained Bond is none the less the charismatic, charming, cavalier anti-hero. Whose cool detachment and killer instinct marking him out as a potentially maladjusted sociopath, an edge never quite hinted towards or explored in the characters on film history. But while we see this protagonist's more psychologically questionable side we also see him enjoying an intelligent yet prickly discourse with latest Bond girl Vesper Lynd portrayed with suitable grace, charm, understated head strong independence by the beautiful Eva green.

Supported by other first rate cast members that include Jeffrey Wright as Bond's future friend and ally, CIA operative Felix Leiter, Giancarlo Giannini as foreign field agent, Mathis and Mads Mikkelsen as the slippery Le Chiffre. It's Mikkelsen who particularly stands out next to Craig as the enigmatic and sporting the at times requisite physical impairment. In this case a derangement of the tear duct which means the villain is seen to have blood emerge from one of his eyes. He makes for a formidable, well rounded foe and superlative foil to Craig's Bond, his cool detachment matching that of his adversary, as well as their combined, guile and cunning. It's with this in mid that it's indeed unfortunate that Le Chiffre isn't given the departure he deserves. His exit when it comes is some what anti-climatic and is quite jarring, allowing events in the movie to take an unexpected and slightly uneven change in course, with a concealed threat waiting in the wings. All this leading to some what awkward and anti-climatic finale which while less bombastic and elaborate(which is in keeping with it's more understated rendering) than previous outing is something of a disappointment. All leading to a denouement which shamelessly leaves the movie open ended to pa-the the way for 2008's "Quantum of Solace". But not before Craig's Bond utters the infamous "The Name is Bond, James Bond". This time laced with dry, distant not to mention understated coolness, marked with authority as its difficult not to disagree that Craig IS James Bond, agent 007 with a license to kill. Sadly however what with it's noble ambitions and intent. The outcome of this reboot doesn't match the inspired new twist and excellence that the actor has brought to the role. "Casino Royale" is serviceable enough but it won't totally leave you shaken and stirred.
10/10
Fantastic!
sabre_pg17 November 2006
This is the real deal, Ian Fleming can now rest in peace, his "James Bond" has finally come to life! With just one movie Daniel Craig takes Sean Connerys crown as the best Bond ever, and will catapult him from obscure British TV actor to massive Hollywood mega-star.

This movie is well scripted, brilliantly directed, beautifully shot, and professionally written. The action scenes leave you completely breathless, especially the chase around the building site, and with one or two unexpected frights during quieter scenes be careful not to choke on your hot dog!

Its a shame we can only give this movie 10 stars,

Simply awesome!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A different sort of Bond...but better. Awesome.
Cocacolaguy912-218 November 2006
I won't hesitate to say "Casino Royale" is among one of the best bond movies to date.

...why? Well for one thing, it does not follow the same Bond story line...bad guy, conflict, distress, climax, ending.

It is different...this is more about who Bond is rather than him doing his job. It is deeper, and that, in my opinion, was a good thing.

Daniel Craig proved himself...and I am looking forward to him doing more Bond movies. He is not the suave, charming sort of guy we saw in Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan...he is a rogue like Sean Connery...he is the Ian Flemming Bond.

I would talk more about the movie, but I think it is necessary that one see without too much knowledge, not to spoil the wonderful uniqueness this film has to it.

Pure Quality film.

9/10.
8/10
James Bond just got better
roar-1826 November 2006
I have just arrived from the cinema, and what i have experienced is.. WOW. For too long James Bond movies have been heading downhill, i will not go into details why i think so but this movie is a huge step UP.

Daniel Craig is really someone who must have surprised a lot of people out there, with the campaigns that have been going on, the protests, all the talking about his height and hair color. Well after this film none of that matters, as Craig did a superb performance, he was a real pleasure to watch as Bond. And not just that, he have saved Bond.

The movie has great acting, great directing, really moving and great dialogs and great music. It is maybe this years absolute best action film, no matter what people thinks of Blonds. ;)

Bond is back, for a long time.
8/10
Not bad but not much to tradition.
Elmware18 November 2006
I watched this on the opening night and it was quite good but lacked a lot of the 007 traditions and not enough 007 theme music. No nude dancing chicks in the opening sequence, and where's Moneypenny?

Anyone who has followed the Bond series would know that Bond's game is Baccaret and not Poker. He also likes his Vodka Martinis shaken but not stirred, but instead he makes up this new drink.

The stunts didn't look ridiculously phony although I don't think some of them would be possible in real life.

Other than playing Poker, the mission wasn't much different than the other versions of Casino Royale made int he past.

There were some humorous clips. One of the jokes might be a bit crude but if you like that kind of humor it's funny as hell.

If you are expecting to see a bunch of Q-gadgetry in this film, you may find yourself in for a bit of a disappointment.

All-in-all I still liked it, but felt that some of the 007 traditions and more 007 theme music would have made it better.
10/10
Best Bond yet? Definitely.
perniciouspen@hotmail.com16 November 2006
Don't let anyone tell you that Daniel Craig isn't James Bond. Not only is he a brilliant, believable 007 but could well be the best yet if Casino Royale is anything to go by.

Out go the pantomime villains and idiosyncratic henchmen, out go the laser-beam-in-the-watch-/invisible-car gimmicky gadgets that we've come to expect from Bond (but don't necessarily need) and in it's place we have a rock hard, fit, highly trained assassin who you can really believe and who relies on his training, wits, strength, fighting skills and firepower. Craig does most of his own stunts and is awesome. You'd never see the likes of Connery, Moore or Brosnan doing stuff like this.

There are some incredible action set pieces...including a post credits chase across a construction site and a couple of very high cranes incorporating that most breath taking of physical skills 'free running'... some wince inducing fights and just when I thought it was all over..a twist I never saw coming.

The corny puns are kept to a minimum but there are some great one liners all the same one of my favourites being Bond's response when asked if he wants his Vodka Martini shaken or stirred? He may be blond..he may have a prison hair cut but by Christ he's a tough bastard and fights like no Bond I've seen before.

As long as they (the producers) don't think that once Craig's been accepted by the public and critically acclaimed they can bring back all the gadgets and corny lines for the next one I think Craig will be excellent.

All the way through the film we hear on the soundtrack just little hints at the Bond theme without it actually being played. But by the time Craig actually says the immortal line 'The name's Bond...James Bond' and Monty Berman's unmistakable theme kicks in everyone in the cinema already knew.. he IS Bond.

I shall definitely be buying this when it comes out on DVD..and I have never bought a Bond film before....it's THAT good!! On a scale of 1-10 this Bond goes up to 11.
1/10
This is not a Bond Movie
danny-drooghenbroodt28 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Be aware! In spite of a main character with he name "Bond" This is not a James Bond Movie. It's no better then a "shoot them up" video game. There are no gadgets, no miss money penny, No Mr Q and above all, this film lacks the spirit of the real James Bond. It's a dark movie, no funny plots like there should be. Daniël Graig doesn't look and doesn't talk like an English gentlemen, he looks old The Bond in this movie is someone who loves to kill, only for his pleasure. The real Bond would never have done that. The Bond girl dies at the end of the move, this unacceptable. She be laying in the arms of James in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. I give it one star only because I can't give 0 stars.
10/10
No gadgets,No Cars but pure entertainment
EditorVinodSingh19 November 2006
Before turning up in movie hall I was memorizing the old movies of James bond specially acted by Pierce Brosnan and was expecting the same treatment for this movie but the movie was made apposite to mass expectation.The Introduction of new actor was a feel good factor for the movie.I must say the new actor justify the role of James Bond brand with his masculine but attractive physique and persona.His persona is such nice that he stands for both romantic hero and clever British agent. Although the movie was not having the regular punch of new technology but subtle in many scenes.One thing i liked very much is the way treatment of love story incorporated in the movie between James Bond and Eva Green, it was unusual for James Bond as his character is defined by flirting with girl and not involved in serious affair with actress.The treatment of James Bond was changed for th movie in many respect specially the excitement and energy of James was most focal point in the movie ,some time he was shown to have done the work with maximum risk which a normal James wont do The story line is also new and focused around casino related crime overall its a movie to watch a must watch for everybody
6/10
Physical, yet smooth, Craig does it best
Sparrowmaniac19 November 2006
Its been a long time since we have seen a Bond fighting with his bare hands doing some death defying stunts minus any gadgets. Casino Royale brings you back to those days, when Bond was a spy, but still a human.

To those who claim that sensational chase sequence in the beginning was exhilarating, I'd recommend go and see District 13. This movie is one which has a pretty bare plot. It features more on Bond showing that he is very vulnerable without the gadgets. Noticeably there is a scarcity of Bond girls in this flick. Eva Green is good but nothing compared to her predecessors. This movie shows Bond's tastes and dislikes, his trademark martini and vodka shot, his passion for poker, and also how he comes by his favorite car, the 1964 Ashton Martin.

Daniel Craig is a much better Bond than many I believe. Certainly better than Roger Moore and maybe even better than Pierce Brosnan. He lacks Brosnan's suave nature but he has the typical style of Connery's quirky humor. His ability to crack the witty jokes makes him a more presentable Bond on screen. Nothing much to say about the pot, because Casino Royale is one of Fleming's most read novels. It is noticeable that there are very few big names in this movie. The absence of Q and Miss Moneypenny is felt greatly. The stunts, well previous Bonds were better. And the best stunt of the movie is greatly inspired from District 13. The movie stretches unnecessarily to wards the end. And a quite abrupt ending. This probably is the only Bond movie where Bond doesn't get a girl in the end.

All in all a fabulous Bond but a wasted effort. 6/10 !!!
10/10
Amazing
transistor_dude20 November 2006
I went to the movie expecting the movie to be good because of Martin Campbell. We've all seen Golden Eye, Mask of Zorro etc. But Casino Royale sure exceeds expectations.

The movie portrays a Bond who is more convincing to be a real MI6 agent than the other typical Bond movies. Bond fans worldwide will sure miss Pierce Brosnan but we have to realize that Daniel Craig definitely is physically more able to perform those amazing stunts than the previous, but perhaps more charismatic Bond.

So I say the team has done an excellent job, though the stunts in the beginning of a movie may seem exaggerated. For those who do not know what PARKOUR is, it is the French originated art of passing obstacles in the fastest and most direct manner possible. The french movie Banlieue 13 has a fine display of the same.

Further, the script was pretty good too, speaking of which, Paul Haggis was a co-writer of Casino Royale!!
10/10
Easily the best Bond movie ever
numenorsniper-6639627 November 2021
This is by far the best Bond movie, in every way. All the actors do a great job, the music and opening theme (You Know My Name) is awesome, very creative and thrilling opening sequence which uniquely leads directly into the gun barrel sequence, the action is consistently thrilling and visually stunning, all the villains are epic (especially Le Chiffre and Mr. White), Eva Green is amazing as Vesper Lynd, and Daniel Craig absolutely knocks it out of the park as Bond!

I always remember this movie as not only the most emotionally powerful Bond movie, but one of the greatest movies ever.

Sadly, all the bond movies that came after this pale in comparison, although Skyfall is pretty good.

I always have fun watching this perfectly edited and directed masterpiece, Martin Campbell made the two best Bond movies ever, this and Goldeneye.
10/10
Casino Royale Confusion!
kcoltat28 November 2006
I went to see Casino Royale with an open mind but still with the mindset that it will follow all other Bonds - bad guy, bad girl, fun fighting and ending with Bond in an embrace with a good girl. However, I was completely taken aback. The fighting was amazingly realistic and I thought that the four people I can think of that die, die in purely horrific ways with a lot of blood and pain. There is also a truly horrific, mind blowing scene, which trust me you'll know when you see it which one i'm talking about, which begs the question whether this film should be a 12A. Also, I personally found this film kinda confusing. Ususally with other Bonds, you can stick it on while doing the housework or the ironing and thoroughly enjoy it. However with this installment, you actually had to pay attention as there is a twist at the end with which if you weren't paying complete attention, may confuse you.

There is a lot so right with this film though. It has a fantastic chase scene at the beginning and the story is far more compelling and intriguing than previous Bonds. It also has an amazing opening credits with an equally amazing theme tune which I would pay good money again just to see that! It has taken a more Die Hard approach which has done wonders for the Bond franchise. More action, more grit, more twists. There are less corny one-liners (however prepare yourself for the odd one or two) and hardly any gadgets - no incredibly cringe worthy invisible car as seen in Die Another Day. And in my opinion Daniel Craig did an excellent job as a different Bond that was so needed.

I honestly believe this is one of the best films of the year, with the action, romance, grit and humour in perfect quantities. If you go to see this film, keep a completely open mind and don't expect a traditional Bond. You will fully be blown away.
10/10
A brilliant installment to the franchise, that delivers the expected Bond qualities and goes beyond this tiring formula.
badrakyoutank22 December 2012
Casino Royale does not rely on abnormal situations, complex concepts/plot or having many "close calls action scenes", to supposedly ethrall and excite the audience. quite the contrary. Its astounding delivery of the simple situations which are presented have me questioning why it does not have a higher rating on the IMDb charts. This movie excels past the recent outings that have been ridden with silly gadgetry tangents which have no use what-so-ever other then catching the eye of the elderly who have not been exposed to such technology. Instead, we see character development (which is essential in any movie) that makes us care for the characters and raises the stakes more so than the $30 million pot.

specifically, the concept is brilliant; high stake poker tournaments, stock manipulation which in extent would lead into a domino effect of a recession. This turns into a beautiful playground for Bond (Daniel Graig)and Vesper Lynd (Eva green) to run rampant in. Outstanding performances from both actors of course accompanied by a notable Giancarlo Giannini who plays Mathis an intelligent 'aid' of Bonds for the majority of the movie.

Anyway, wrapping up the review. This movie is brilliant for its simplicity, the characters and its execution. It goes beyond the tiring formula which was in need of a much needed kick-start, and luckily this installment of Casino Royale has delivered this rejuvenating kick and also given the die-hard Bond fans a slither of hope for the future.
10/10
Welcome to the Layer Cake son.
don_logan26 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The best James Bond film since Goldfinger. Im not a big Bond guy but I really enjoyed the original 3. Dr.No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. But I must say this was absolutely the best Bond film I've seen in a long time. The story was superb. Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery, and its actually realistic.

Written first by Paul Haggis. This script is excellent. Right from the beginning when we see the two kills that promote Bond to 00 status i though wow finally a good opening sequence for a Bond film. It also contains some inside jokes or taking shots at the previous films like all the cliché moments. When Bond goes to order a Vodka Martini the bartender asks "How do you want it".I heard somebody in the audience go "Shaken not s.." but before he could finish Bond responds "Does it look like I give a damn". Everybody was laughing at that idiot. And when Bond is captured by the main villain the villain enters Bonds holding cell while hes strapped to a bottomless chair, naked and the villain says "Its not that complicated to torture a man" I felt that referenced to the other films which deal in lasers,timers and sharp objects. Instead Le Chiffre prefers the rug beater. I will say no further except it must have been painful.

I was surprised to see people petitioning Daniel Craig a great British actor who's been in greats such as "Layer Cake" and "Enduring Love". I think after Bond fans saw Royale they probably realized what some actors are capable of. He is simply the best since Connery. His performance was marvelous especially when he says his one liners or Bond-ish phrases he doesn't over do it like all the other Bonds except Connery. He is simply speaking like Bond as a human being would speak and not saying with a stupid grin thinking "What I just said was clever". Hopefully Craig being the great actor that he is and this film is going to do wonders for his career can do at least two more Bond films.

The only reason i cant watch the Roger Moore Bond films and anything after that was because they were simply ridiculous. The plots were terrible. Acting very campy and the dialogue is cliché. People already know what hes going to say before he speaks. The villains diabolical plots or schemes are far fetched, impossible and silly. However this is about an accountant for terrorists who needs money to pay off a terrorist organization due to a failed attack on a proto type of a plane. Bonds mission is to clean him out of all his money and take him in to MI6 as witness against these organizations. Very simple. Not too many twists. No diabolical plot. Just an excellent spy film. For those reading WATCH CASINO ROYALE!!THIS COULD BE THE BEST POPCORN MOVIE/BOND FILM OUT THERE.IN CRAIG WE TRUST!!! don_logan
3/10
Daniel Craig carries that Bond baton beautifully but the movie lacks substance
fuel_for_ur_thots17 November 2006
Went to see the special screening of the movie with much anticipation only to be disappointed by it.

To begin with its not your 100% typical bond film. I know the producers and critics have said that this is not your typical Bond, he is tougher grittier and blah blah. My question is,what does Bond stands for? Bond is known for its over the top image, girls and cars with loads of gizmo's. Thats the kind of Bond we have come to know and love. This movie only has flashes of that quintessential bond that we have known so far. I am wondering if this shift away from the traditional bond is a reflection of the success of more grittier and darker heroes of the movies like Bourne series and batman begins.

Thats about the Bond as a character. The film on the other hand lacks substance. There are only about 2 major action sequences which I have to say have been well shot and live up the expectations of the Bond genre. The focal point of the film, the poker game is much too stretched and so is the romance between Bond and Vesper. The highlight of that part of the film is the one liners between them which has been stylishly and cleverly executed. The plot is quite simple and and doesn't leave much to the imagination. I was also quite disappointed with the ending. Now since when have we started having Bond films in sequels.

Overall I think the producers are taking the franchise in the wrong direction. We were never short of darker grittier celluloid heroes. What attracted people to bond was that he was larger than life.
9/10
More than a good Bond movie, it's just a good movie.
namideo15 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you have not yet seen this movie, you need to. Aside from the fact that James Bond is one of the greatest things ever to happen to cinema, it's just a good movie, period. You don't have to be a fan of the series to like it. And if you are a long time fan, it's almost impossible not to love this movie as it re-launches the character we know and love while at the same time moving forward and building on the Bond mythology.

I admit, I was one of the skeptics in regards to the idea of a Bond reboot, but once I saw this on the big screen, my mind was changed. Not only does it work remarkably well but they did it with the story in the original novel that created the character, Casino Royale, and thus Bond is born again.

First off, Daniel Craig ...Bond actors come and go but Craig is irreplaceable in this film. He carries the weight of the movie on his shoulders and doesn't break a sweat. His Bond is in a state of evolution; he's a little more naive, less methodical and more the type to just kick down the door and see what happens and eventually smooths out into the character we're familiar with.

The film begins with Bond earning his famous "007" ranking. With two kills in quick succession, one messy and one that goes "considerably" easier, he's immediately given his license to kill and sets off on the trail of an international terrorist network. Eventually his investigation leads him to Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkleson), a banker of sorts who loses massive terrorist funds due to Bond's intervening efforts and attempts to repay his employers swiftly through a game of Texas hold 'em poker at the luxurious Casino Royale in Montenegro. Bond puts his well known card playing skills to the test, and is sent in to make sure the bad guys do not succeed. He is accompanied by the enigmatic and voluptuous Vesper Lynd, the accountant sent in to back Bond in the poker match, played marvelously by Eva Green. The script is particularly sharp in their scenes together. As they exchange verbal swordplay and brave danger together, Bond slowly realizes he's met his match.

There are 3 aspects of note in this film. First off, the quality of the actors. There is not one character taken for granted and every single performance is legitimately good. Secondly, the action sequences in this movie are spectacular. The parkour scene in the film's first 20 minutes I think has already gone down as one of the most famous in the series, and Craig does much of his own stunt work. And third, this movie has balls. Literally. Through the intense action, the critical story, not to mention a grisly torture scene that will make even the toughest of men squeamish, they really pulled out all the stops on this one. It's a no-nonsense, roller coaster thrill ride that still has something to say at the end.

The film thrives on the whole beginning of Bond, concept. The way he stops and looks in the mirror the first time we see him in a tuxedo. There's even a scene where he invents his famous martini. Followers of the series will also notice the introduction of Bond's long time CIA friend, Felix Leiter, played by Jeffery Wright. But aside from the evolutionary aspects, we follow Bond on one of his greatest, and probably most classic adventures. We're introduced to the character as a "blunt instrument." He's a tough as nails, ruthless operative with nothing to lose. A special trained agent made to function like a machine and somehow discovers his soul along the way.
10/10
Incredible
StonedMagician19 October 2018
Completely NOT what you'd expect from a James Bond movie: No ludicrous gadgets, no over-the-top villains, just smart action and writing. Mind-blowing, and easily the best Bond film.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The name is Bond, James Bond
camelot230229 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let's be honest here - the Bond franchise before Casino Royale was in serious trouble. The Pierce Brosnan movies had tanked, and the story lines were getting more and more ridiculous (invisible cars anyone?). Every person I talked to was extremely disillusioned with the Bond movies and we all yearned for a blazing comeback. So, going to see Casino Royale, the big question on everyone's lips was "does Daniel Craig have the power to resuscitate James Bond?". By the end, everyone was shouting "YES!!!". Bond is most definitely back.

Watching Craig's performance, you have to wonder what all the criticism of his casting was about. Craig is easily the best Bond since Roger Moore (maybe even better?). He brings a certain quality to the role that has been sadly lacking in the Pierce Brosnan interpretations. Craig partly emulates Tim Dalton by being a blue-eyed cold-hearted killer with the morals and scruples of a cobra snake. He notches up his three kills to earn his "007" status and then he is sent into the big wide world to wreak havoc on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Eva Green though is pathetic. I thought the Bond franchise had hit a new low casting Denise Richards in "World is Not Enough" but Eva Green seems to be even worse. To call her a wilting lilly would be an insult to all lillies.

But back to Craig, you know he has the 007 stuff when he shocks himself conscious with a defibrillator in his car then coolly goes back to the poker table to sip a martini and play another hand! Classy!

For the first time in a VERY long time, I am eagerly looking forward to the next Bond movie.
8/10
Casino Royale with Cheese
the_Poppuns17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The cheese being Eva Green, all the stuff with MI6, a trip to Naboo and giving exposition duties to the man with the thickest accent in the cast. If you removed all that nonsense this would be the best Bond movie ever and one of the best action movies ever.

I guess I just don't like Eva Green. I disliked her in The Dreamers but thought it might be the character but it wasn't. Imo, she's awful here and I could see that it's the same 'what is that smell?' face that she can't stop making and lack of nuance (that I didn't realize would be a problem with a Bond girl role but it actually is) that puts you off.

I don't understand why, if they were going to reboot, they didn't get a new M. Everyone loves Judi Dench. I do too, but this time not only didn't it make sense but she was kinda wooden. Yes, her. I couldn't believe it either. All the MI6 stuff was cringe-worthy.

The trip to Naboo. Lake Como is gorgeous, and plenty of areas are used often in film, BUT since it's been such a recognizable setting in a huge film set in a galaxy far far away, I don't think it was wise to go back there so soon. It could have been worse. George Clooney could have been marrying Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie in the background I suppose.

L'uomo d'exposizione. Giancarlo Giannini has a thick accent. Don't have him explain things. What's worse is that everything he explained, was completely obvious. I'm not 3. I can add the money in the pot myself. :p

I got the same feeling watching this that I did with Superman Returns. You go into the movie wondering if the new guy is going to be able to fit the suit and he's great, even perfect, but then something obvious like the script or in this case the other actors throws the whole thing off. It's not as bad in Casino Royale, but with both movies you can't help but think, "If only they'd done this" or "If only they hadn't done that". I get the feeling watching most Bond films that they don't care much about the details. I like Daniel Craig. I think he's a really good-looking guy, but somehow they made him look awful, mostly in the scenes at the beginning. But you begin to wonder if they just didn't bother hiring lighting or make-up people. It got better after a while. But there are a couple time when you just go "Woah!", like when he comes out of the water. Just after the clip you see in the trailer, there is a close up of his face and he looks like a combination of the kid from Mad magazine and Dobby the house elf.

But about him as Bond. I really think he's great. I liked him going into this movie and I never really had the concerns everyone else did about whether he could be 007 or not. I think this was definitely more of a rock 'em sock 'em Bond. The opening sequence with Sebastian Foucan(who is this guy? Spider-Man? Insane athleticism.) was the best Bond opener ever. I mean the new one always has to be right? Well I thought it rocked. Imo, you can really see that this movie was made after the Mission Impossible and Bourne movies. I'm hesitant to say it was influenced by them because Bond kinda started it, but yeah. And Craig is very much someone I could see actually being an agent. I think he was also very suave and debonair with the first love interest played by Caterina Morino. I wish she had been the female lead. I don't think there was very good chemistry with the other one. He's a more sensible, realistic, and of course blonde, but also a darker Bond. In this movie the silly one liners stuck out like a sore thumb, whereas in most Bond films they fit right in.

There was awesome chemistry with the main villain, Le Chiffre played to perfection by Mads Mikkelsen. I'm willing to put him on my short list of Bond villains, with 006 and Scaramanga. All the James Bond kinda stuff was amazing. The action scenes, the casino scenes, etc., were the best in any Bond film. I really think most people who like Bond movies will enjoy it. And people who like Action but for some reason don't usually go for Bond will have more to like here. Everyone should love Daniel Craig. And I think we'll all be looking forward to the next one to be that much better.

p.s. One more complaint. Jeffrey Wright had like 3 lines. Don't do that. He's one of the best actors working today.

p.p.s Who was that gorgeous Asian man at the poker table? He needs to be in like 10 movies, stat.
8/10
Gritty and powerful. Bond is definitely back!
KiltedGreen23 November 2006
This was my first time back to actually see Bond at the cinema for many years; to see if the 'Batman Begins' of Bond could deliver. The short answer - "Definitely yes!"

Gone are the cringe-making puns, silliness and Star Trek style villains and in comes a heavy dose of the real world. Or at least, the real world as it may be for a globe trotting secret agent.

The action sequences are gripping, the plot twists and turns like a Swiss mountain pass, the violence painful and hard-hitting and, for me, quite shocking at times. The locations are suitably glamorous - swanky hotels, yachts, islands, luxury cars and clothes as we've come to expect over the years. And of course, there's Bond himself. Daniel Craig was a complete unknown to me before this film, but wow! He's made his mark in my book - tough, believable, ruthless, intelligent, sophisticated and sexually magnetic - for the first time in a Bond movie I was just knocked out by Bond's physical presence and I would certainly find him difficult to resist. Sadly, the reverse would not be true perhaps ...

Some reviews have said that the film lagged a little in places but I didn't find that to be the case, they were simply lulls in the action which allowed other aspects of plot and/or character to develop. Even in every scene where things are 'going slowly' there's a feeling that something's about to happen at any moment. There really is a palpable sense of tension for the whole film which is just how I want a Bond film to be. And though there are a few little jokes and remarks throughout the film, they're actually amusing or funny! Now there's something new. One of those I liked that I can actually remember was where Vesper and Bond are about to get into the lift and she says "Get the next one. There's not room for me and your ego in here".

The other characters are as well fleshed out as they require and of course Dame Judi is marvellous - revealing a more rounded 'M' than we've seen before, both cold and detached and yet also protective and understanding. This is symbolic of the film generally - it actually has depth, solidly and a sense of the real for the first time in decades. It feels like we're on planet earth instead of a sci-fi experience set 40 years from now.

I've not read the original book so I don't know how closely the film follows it - though the reliance on mobile phones is obviously missing from the novel! - it may well bode well for a comb through Fleming's back catalogue if they haven't all been raided by now. I'm sure they can invent some if needed.

Finally, I liked the title sequence and the music, whilst not up with any instant Bond classics it sounded good on a first hearing. David Arnold's score was excellent as befits someone with an obvious love of the Bond musical genre.

So, get off down to the cinema and enjoy yourself.
6/10
James Bond begins
moimoichan67 December 2006
Last time we saw James Bond, he was trying to make his way through North Corea's jails, with the little help of Q's gadgets, non-stop explosions, and spectacular special effects... He should have died that day. And he did. At least, that the impression that wants to give us the new Bond movie : no more invisible cars and other improbable gadgets, nor weak and fantasist scenarii, which are only a pretext for a succession of big action scenes and tiny bikinis. Instead, Casino Royale introduces a violent and realistic tone in the franchise, and shows that efforts were made on the script, where the culminated points are a tense poker game and a tragic love story, and, as the producers claim, the movie gives a meaner James Bond to meaner times. In that part, Daniel Craig is excellent, impersonating an imperturbable cold heart killer with sharp eyes, and is perfect as the new face of James Bond.

This changings are not very surprising : James Bond's franchise never greatly dealt with continuity (different actors for the same characters, who seem to forget every other episodes as soon as a new one begins...), and he never really started (for he's more a symbol than a man with a story : as well as M or Q, 007 is an immortal icon who has always been what he is). With a new actor coming and in search of something new to tell, the idea of a relaunch was an evidence: new face, new tone, new origins and new continuity for James Bond: it all starts with James Bond 21.

The good point is that it works : James Bond's character has at last a story, which can be dated, the events in this episode will hopefully have consequences on the other ones and we may have the opportunity to fallow a real progression in Bond's personality with Daniel Craig. The weak point is that it's still a James Bond movie, and that's bad for two reason. First of all, every James Bond film has to content an incredible, spectacular and "bigger than life" action scene in it. In Casino Royale, this scene is in the very beginning of the movie, it's a (too) long and incredible course-pursuit where Bond destroys everything chasing a man, who seems to have super agility powers. This scene reminds you that you're watching a James Bond, and wants to impress you with a demonstration of its massive budget. But the thing is that if this could work in the previous adventures of 007, which were all in exaggeration, it doesn't fit in a movie which claims to be realistic and credible in terms of action. And this contrast between the will to impress with pyrotechnic and the concern with realistic tones doesn't work and make this movie sometimes looks ridiculous. You'll never experience this kind of scene in realistic features like 24, for instance.

And that's the second weak point of the movie : instead of being inventive and original, the new James Bond, as usual, just fallow the atmosphere of its time. The last ones tried to concurrence movies like XXX or M:I:2 (which, by the way, copy themselves the previous Bond's), and now, Casino Royale only fallow realistic TV show like 24. The meaner James Bond looks a lot like a meaner Jack Bauer, and the meaner times look a lot like the real time of 24. And, because of the ridiculous action scenes, and the "too much" style which defines all Bond movies, Casino Royale doesn't archive to be as good as 24.

Therefore, if some efforts are indisputably made to improve the franchise and if Casino Royale is far from being a bad movie, the James Bond's franchise stays conventional, unoriginal, impersonal and, most of all, weaker than a TV show like 24. But, there's also no doubt that Casino Royale is the best thing that happened to Bond in years and that he's on a new and interesting track with Daniel Craig's run.
6/10
Playing with Cliché and Stereotypes
neo1771174 December 2006
As the title implies, 007 has a reputation to live up to. In most cases, I must say the film stays true to the origins, playing with clichés and stereotypes of villains and femme fatales. New Bond is simply full of attitude and has "BADASS" written all over his face, almost like an anti-hero. However, I must say I was disappointed after credits rolled. With recent hold'em craze influencing Casio Royale, the gambling scenes lacked something. I just can't grasp what it is, but the film's gambling scenes are inferior compared to Hong Kong "five card draw" gambling films. I understand the film's main focus isn't gambling but it dumbed down the excitement of hold'em. Another aspect I disliked was multiple hangers towards the end. Climax had gone down and it felt like it was dragging through two extra endings, somewhat like Da Vinci. It's nice to see little tie-ins and all, but overall it's just a slightly above average action film. It's a decent weekend bond film, disappointingly not great.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Craig is an ace
matlefebvre2012 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Four years and 200 candidates later, the new James Bond is here. I couldn't remember of a more intense search for a new actor than the Bond search. This story could almost fit in a movie of its own. But all's well that ends well. And the curtain rises for Daniel Craig, aka "James Blond".

Initially, Craig gets evident attention for his blond hair and his sea-blue eyes, which are not typical from the 007 agent. But these physical doubts vanish when we see what Craig really is able to do. Because the James Bond that we watch here has accomplished his most fabulous task to date: looking more like a human being.

"Casino Royale" begins by presenting a recently promoted James Bond, who finds himself blamed by the MI6 for a wrongfully executed mission. But Bond has a chance to redeem himself by winning a high-stakes poker game in Montenegro's Casino Royale against Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen), a banker who finances global terrorist organizations. If Le Chiffre loses, his organization will collapse.

Bond is accompanied by Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), a Treasury agent who's assigned to watch over Bond and help him win the game. Eventually, Bond and Lynd fall in love and the game becomes more and more dangerous.

The story is very complex, but that's far from being a shortcoming. I think we've all had enough of black-and-white stories filled with colorless villains and allies. Le Chiffre is a good villain, but the fact that more hidden crooks are present and play various roles in the story adds some spicy stuff.

If Daniel Craig has been chosen for the main role, it's not for nothing. His interpretation is gorgeous and because he suffers more in this movie than any other actor before him, we can only fall for him. I'm not saying that it's good seeing Bond suffering and being devilishly tortured in that famous cargo scene with Le Chiffre, but the realism that it brings transform the Bond franchise into something very different. A large gap has been created between "Die Another Day" and "Casino Royale".

This movie relies less on gadgets and other stupid stuff, but it's not completely thrown away. The screenwriters made their chores by showing us that a cell phone can do a lot of things today. It's something that we all knew, but this kind of stuff is great to see.

The action scenes are spectacular (but this phrase isn't surprising, is it?). It begins with this relentless chase in Madagascar. The crane sequence is astounding. In this scene, we don't see vertigo. We feel it.

However, I don't like that James Bond jumps from crane to crane and then to small buildings without pain like he does. He's a British agent, not Super Mario!

The car accident that Bond gets after he wins the poker tournament is completely over-wondering. The sequence of rolls and flying debris is probably the best of its kind that I've ever seen.

I also liked the suspense created by the poker game. I don't know anything about card games, but I know when a scene is suspenseful. And this was suspenseful.

And finally, the opening sequence is one of the very best ever made for a Bond film. The surreal animated images of Bond shooting spade-shaped bullets and targets becoming roulette wheels is catchy. And that's a small word.

The accompanying opening song has been criticized because it's an alternative rock song, which is supposedly not in the spirit of James Bond. I disagree with this statement because Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" is a great song. And because Bond is evolving, I think that the title song should evolve as well. I'm not saying that as an alternative fan (because I'm not an alternative fan). I only say that an adventure happening nowadays should not only LOOK but also SOUND nowadays.

I just hope that the producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson will recognize what was wrong with the previous films and what's great about this one. With these thoughts in mind and with Daniel Craig as Bond, it would only be a matter of time before the series could really be dubbed as a royal flush.
10/10
Glad to have you back Mr Bond.
eamon-hennedy30 April 2007
After a depressingly long gap of four years which has seen countless rumour and the departure of my personal favourite Bond, Pierce Brosnan, the Eon series returns with what may be one of the finest films yet in the Bond cannon. Of course what makes this such a fantastic film is not just the usual refinements (to quote, although in this case absent, Q) such as action and spectacle, but is the risk that the filmmakers take with this, the twenty first Bond epic. The most popular leading man, at least commercially speaking, that the series has had is gone, as our some of the usual trademarks. The gunbarrell doesn't open the film outright as it does the title sequence, the latter of which does not feature naked ladies for the first time in history from what I recollect, although Daniel Kleinman, the titles designer since Goldeneye, still does a great job with the card motif, there is little in the way of hardware and gadgets and we have a blonde Bond, as many other reviewers are keen to point out.

The portrayal of Bond in this film is of the utmost importance and Daniel Craig is superb throughout, mainly because the script is not a collection of action sequences with a basic story of world domination centred around it. What we have here is a three dimensional Bond, a man who hurts, feels pain, falls in love and has his heart destroyed by betrayal and death and must learn that in order to survive in this world that he has been 'promoted' to, he must trust no one. Throughout the arc that Bond goes through in Casino Royale Craig is superb. A decent actor in his own right (see Road to Perdition and Layer Cake for more), it seems that by betting an actor of this calibre, writers Purvis and Wade, along with Paul Haggis, have decided to put some meat to the bone and it works superbly. Yes he looks good in a tux, hell he looks good in an Hawaian shirt in the opening chase scene, but there is just as much substance to his portrayal of Bond and in a day and age where Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne (what is it with spies with the initials JB?) rule the roost in the genre, it's nice to see the character who started it all get something juicy to chew on.

Of course a Bond film is nothing without the best action sequences to fall back on too, and Casino Royale will not disappoint anyone craving a little adrenalin whilst watching Bond. The aforementioned chase sequence at the start featuring some of the craziest running stunts in recent years will leave you breathless, an attempted terror attack at Miami airport is superbly staged whilst the the sinking house in Vienna is one of the most stunning, not to mention vicious, action sequences the series has ever done. Speaking of vicious, one should be warned that this is a more harsher film than has been done before, with the violence being more along the lines of Licence to Kill rather than Die Another Day or Goldeneye. The fights are bloody and messy and the torture sequence involving a stripped and naked Bond being beaten by Le Chiffre ranks as one of the most shocking to have been passed with a 12 certificate that I can remember.

This is a great film is every aspect. As usual it is well made, with love and care from everyone, has heart as well as muscle and with the highest box office to date for a Bond film, should see the series continue for several years yet. Glad to have you back Mr Bond.
8/10
Bond figures out "who he is"
kf4wvk17 November 2006
It was a good Bond movie. This is indeed the very first days of Bond's "double oh" days. He hasn't yet established who he is: attitude, motivations, preferences, etc. It's very intriguing to hear how bond orders his drinks in this movie. And his choice of cars. And how he deals with danger.

There was some really good action in this flick, with the typical running, leaping, crashing, hard driving, things blowing up, etc. If you were afraid this would be a more sensitive film, rest your fears. It is, but it doesn't sacrifice action to do it.

Not giving anything away, but when Bond is captured and the bad guy begins his torture, there are no empty threats. Bond takes some abuse... enough to make the audience groan audibly. This was the grittiest part of the film.

There are some lines and events in this film that brought out satisfying laughter in the audience.

There were also a couple of unexpected events that caused me to jump a bit, primarily because the sound punctuated the action very effectively.

I'm a tough critic, and I give this 8/10 stars.
10/10
This is the best James Bond movie ever made!!!
salut19 December 2006
Wow this is the best James Bond movie of all 22 movies ever made. Its a non stop 2 hrs 45 min thriller. I saw the 1967 version in 1970. This has nothing to do with the lame original other than the name "Vesper" and "Le Chiffre" the story is contemporary, the locales are exotic and romantic, absolutely amazing photography and surround sound. Eva Green was so stunning. Daniel Craig was so ugly in other movies. What did they do to make him so ruggedly handsome, so masculine, so cool!!!so sexy. He must have spent 6 months buffing himself up for this role the same way Brad Pitt did for "TROY". This a perfect 10!!! I will see this movie over and over!!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond Since the 60s
aidanhill28 November 2006
Most of the reviews here are good, but some seem not to get it. The Bond franchise had grown tired, predictable, and stale. Too many gadgets, too many super villains, too many explosions. And Bond - the most famous spy in the world. How could the man do anything when everyone knew him on sight? He practically announced himself whenever he walked into a room. This new Bond is visceral, exciting - he's raw, hard-edged (perhaps even a bit psychotic), and sexy. There's a real sense of danger in this Bond that hasn't existed since the very first films. This is a guy who could really kill you, and might, without batting an eye. The action is intense, but more realistic this time - not dependent on fancy gadgets. The women are beautiful, but like the new Bond, in a more realistic and believable way. This is really a great new start for the franchise, and I hope they run with it by really starting the series over from scratch. This is Bond as he was meant to be, not a cartoon caricature, but a skilled government assassin.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Something Completely Different
de_niro_20016 December 2006
This is different from the previous Bond films. Daniel Craig has none of Roger Moore's cool invulnerability and he actually bleeds and cries out in pain. This film is also much darker than the previous Bonds and it is a return to Ian Fleming's original concept. Everything is a lot more low key. One shortcoming, though, is that there isn't as much humour as there has been in previous Bond movies. Other Bond films have always included references to earlier films, such as the fights aboard trains in Live and Let Die and The Spy Who Loved Me which are tributes to the fight on the Orient Express in From Russia With Love. Die Another Day deliberately includes references to all the previous Bond films. There is absolutely no deja vu in this film despite the action moving to Venice, a city which featured in From Russia With Love and Moonraker. There is a scene in Venice which would never have featured in earlier Bond films because the special effects technology used for this scene has not existed until now. I liked this film but I think I speak for many who have seen it when I say that I'd like to see a return to the style of previous Bond films.
4/10
Mixed Emotions
Torison19 November 2006
I am sure many will disagree with this review. Still, here's my take. First, Daniel Craig is a great James Bond. A lot of the movie works. But, I had several complaints and in the end I had to say I didn't really like it... at least, not enough to want to go see it again in the near future. Biggest complaint - this movie is way too long, and it drags near the end. The main romance was not terribly believable, given the way things were set up. Characters would enter with little to no background or setup, then have a major plot impact, seemingly out of the blue. At the end of the movie, I discussed it with several friends, and we couldn't even decide who one of the main characters was supposed to be, or untangle another character's likely motivation, or what happened in a third scene. By the end, I was left emotionally detached. The movie does a lot of things right, but a lot of other things wrong, and, for me, on balance, I cannot recommend it.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Movie of the Year!
Chris Ronson16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The question burning on everyone's lips has to be, is it any good?

The answer is quite simply is – yes.

The plot of the film is simple enough. Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen) sets up a high stakes poker game in Montenegro to raise the funds necessary to pay back a debt owed to terrorists he once had dealings with. Bond (Craig) is sent on his first major assignment as '00' agent to ensure that Le Chiffre is not successful in winning the game, thus sending him into hiding and allowing MI6 to grant him asylum in exchange for vital information about the terrorist community at large. The flip side however is that if Bond loses the game to Le Chiffre, he and the British Government will become directly responsible for funding terrorism.

The pace of the film glides along from start to finish so well that you remain completely unaware of the two hours and forty-five minutes that have just passed. The direction seems almost completely flawless and certain pieces of cinematography are almost breathtaking. From the scenes filmed in the Bahamas to the chique surroundings of the Casino itself, even a glimpse of the lavish apartment of 'M', the locations chosen really bring to life the world of Bond. The fight scenes and car work have clearly had a great deal of time and effort put into the choreography and eventual filming, and both entertain with spectacular results, this time going as far as to be somewhat chilling in nature (Look out for a torture scene with a broken chair that really did strain the boundaries of the 12A rating!). The usual element of charm and wit has not been forgotten either though, especially in a very memorable scene which shows us the invention of the famous "Vodka-Martini, shaken not stirred".

But the real joys of the film are the people. Scripted in a believable manner the characters are truly 'brought to life'. Craig in my opinion is without a doubt the best Bond since Sean Connery, and in some ways he even surpasses his predecessor. His general appearance along with his calm and often cold demeanour is perfectly fit to what we would expect of a hardened spy/assassin and thus far is the closest to the James Bond of the original Ian Fleming novels. It's also nice to see the origins of 007 and to see what makes him 'tick'. We get to see a glimpse of the reality of what he does and even gain an understanding of his sexist nature towards women. Mads Mikkelsen is superb as Le Chiffre, the almost emotionless compulsive gambler, and lest we not forget the Bond girl, Vesper Lynd. Eva Green gives a wonderful performance in her role and the chemistry between Lynd and Bond is nice enough to watch. I have to say the best on-screen couple though is without a doubt Bond and M, as this outing gives us a much clearer view of the relationship we saw so little of in the previous films.

Overall this film has surpassed itself in that it made a bold step reinventing the franchise and actually came out as one of the best of the entire series. Bond is back ladies and gentlemen, and he's back to stay. And for all you non-believers out there, Daniel Craig IS Bond, James Bond!

Ronson's Rating: 9/10 - Movie of the year!

To read more of my reviews, please visit my blog-site at http:\\filmcell.wordpress.com
8/10
Not just a Bond film
grimbeard27 November 2006
This is one of those rare Bond films: one which isn't *just* a Bond film (and I speak as as Bond fan). This one would be a good action film even if you changed the character names and title - i.e. if it wasn't a Bond film. That puts it up there with Doctor No (there wasn't a Bond film franchise before, although there were the books, and it was still successful), Goldeneye, and the best of the rest.

I was a sceptic before seeing the film, but Daniel Craig is an excellent star in the role of Bond. Far closer to Connery than anyone else so far (including Dalton's wonderfully raw characterisation) and with a different kind of charisma to Brosnan. Early days, but there is tremendous potential here - bring on the next one!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Stonking re-energising of a tired franchise
LouE1521 October 2007
Now that it's long since out, and a triumph, it's easy to look back and assume that it was always going to be a huge success, but it wasn't always so…there were plenty of Craig-haters and I'm proud to say I was never one of them. If you haven't watched this fantastically entertaining film by now, really where have you been? Watching some old Bourne nonsense? What's wrong with you!

The way in which everything about Bond is different in "Casino Royale" is well illustrated by an early chase sequence: Bond comes face to face with the object of his chase, and the baddie (in fact a very famous free-runner) shoots at him with an empty gun, then throws the gun at Bond. During an older Bond film, the next shot would have been Bond dodging the gun and coming up with some slick wisecrack while raising one eyebrow. Daniel Craig's Bond catches the gun and throws it right back, hard, at the baddie, striking him. No words are exchanged and immediately the chase is back on.

This example sets the tone and pace for a completely reinvigorated Bond film; Craig's Bond moves decisively through a violent world, his hard edges borne out by his style. Everything about him, from his strongly marked face and piercing blue eyes, to his forceful movements and his intense physicality, confirms that here Bond is reborn, forged in iron. It was probably quite telling that some irritating ignorant brats at the back of the cinema kept talking and laughing through the quiet, talkie segments of the film. I suppose that reflects both the increased length, and the fact that this time, explosion doesn't simply follow explosion, chase following chase. Everybody doesn't get shot. Don't let any of that turn you off: this one has legs, and teeth. I can't wait for the follow up.
7/10
wtf
JohnSelf2 April 2007
I normally am mildly entertained by Bond movies. This one was much better. One thing I'm very curious about is why people have left numerous references in the trivia section about license plate numbers. Who cares if James Bond license plate reads 3430473 unless it has some relevance? Personally, I don't give a sh*t and find it more than a bit annoying. It's not trivia - it's irrelevant.

Now that I've got my rant about "trivia" out of the way I would say this is the most enjoyable Bond film I've seen. In my view there is considerable more depth than usual. I would imagine this is not something that would appeal to die-hard Bond fanatics, but those who normally wouldn't watch should give it a try.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
mixed feelings...
Sjhm30 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I preferred the step back to realism, which I didn't think I would... in some ways, the other Bonds had become far too much about the gadgets, which lost the essence of the stories. Daniel Craig's Bond is a hard man. Suave, but tough enough to take the knocks that his profession is going to bring him. He gives Bond back his edge, and his cynicism.

That said, I did find it a little difficult to accept Daniel Craig as Bond, chiefly because his portrayal is somewhat humourless by comparison. A humourless Bond would be easier to accept if the story itself did not contain a fairly sickening level of violence which seemed somewhat over the top.

On the whole a great effort, and a very worthy entrant; materially improved by a taut script, tight direction and excellent action sequences which were not just flash and dash but actually advanced the story. After some of the excesses in the seventies and early eighties, I was starting to wonder if Bond had shot his bolt... this was a very welcome return to form.
9/10
Very good-00
thegreatswan30 November 2006
I went to see the movie on its release day (22nd November) at the Grand Rex theater on Paris, and I didn't regret it. Yep, I was quite surprised when I didn't see, at first, the famous... I can't find the word... When Bond walks in, on the target of a killer, does a little turn and shoots him... But then, it arrived just a few minutes later and wow ! What are the differences ? Less gadgets, OK, but you don't need a galore of it. A blond Bond ? Whatever. No Moneypenny ? Maybe in the next one. More violence ? Yeah, that's right, but after all, we're speaking about a spy, licensed to kill, not about the nanny in "The sound of music". No graphic violence in a action movie would be a mistake. So, good storyline (Ian Fleming's stories are always the best), pretty girls (Caterina makes me feel like a whistling wolf and I think that Eva Green, whose beauty is more delicate, is absolutely delicious, but maybe it's just chauvinistic as she's French like me), a bad guy quite interesting (such a frightening face : Le Chiffre seems as human as Michael Myers' mask) and a very good James Bond : tough, quite rude, who hurts himself a lot... More human, actually. All in all, it's not the best Bond movie (my personal choice : a tie between Goldfinger and Thunderball), but it's the best since Sean Connery. Et voilà.
9/10
Casino Royale : The Best Movie ever? I don't think so...
panksplay28 June 2007
First of all i must say that Daniel Craig has put lot of hard work in it, and has done a good job. Yeah ! still i am saying that it's not the BEST movie ever, and here its my review. THE BOND movie we have watched so far and how the character been elevated by the persona's of Sir Sean Connery, Roger Moore and the SOUL of real BOND Pierce Brosnan. That Charm or say that Smirk smile was missing in the movie, the BOND is suppose to be street smart, who fights with intelligence not with his muscle power. the Sound track of the movie keeps you always excited in the flick, which i miss in this movie... when people go for BOND movie they expect to see some cool gadgets, which they can always wish all there life to put there hands on. I had MISSED Q in this movie and i m sure other's too... as it his passion about what he designed and BOND's cheesy arguments with him and proving there genius to each other was a treat to watch. And the BAD Guy should leave a lasting impression on movie lovers... who can even give 007 a scare for his life...

I would say if all the above mentioned things were not supposed to be BOND's essential... i don't wanna see 007 doing things like BOURNE IDENTIY.. for that i m HAPPY with MATT DAMON for his great work.

I want BOND to do his work... flirt with girls, argue with Q, have the great cars... and fight with villain with his intelligence not with muscle.

Ario's !
9/10
Better than the Book?!
cartoon81222 June 2019
Excellent modern adaptation from the book by Ian Fleming. Might be my new favorite Bond movie
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A James Bond without Romantic Demeanor
Umar Mansoor Bajwa30 May 2008
Casino Royale is yet to be published as a novel, because, it was never fully composed/written into a published book by Ian Fleming. Ian Fleming supervised the making of only Dr. No and Goldfinger, which carry the marks of the creator.

Daniel Craig has rendered a rough, crude and bloody image to Ian Fleming's character. On the contrary, Sean Connery as the ideal James Bond was dashing in his manly, robust and flamboyant appeal while portraying exact physiognomy for the Fleming Bond. Subsequently, Roger Moore with his characteristic raised eyebrows and romantic appeal won the title role in a record 7 James Bond flicks. The directors of those times kept a subtle balance of drama, adventure, action, romance and suspense while keeping the legend alive.

However, Casino Royale's Bond is too truculent rather exhibits a stony aura of an otherwise suave spy. He is a fatalist in the sense, that his actions and body language speak of cold blooded murders, although himself getting injured on numerous occasions.... a sign of the times. Astonishingly, the patriarchal character of "Q" has been abolished in this film. Nearly all novels written by Fleming mention Q with his innovative show of detective gadgetry and a roadster to facilitate Bond from rescuing dangerous situations.

There are a lot of audience who prefer to watch a soft image Bond like Moore, or an aquiline featured Bond like Connery; those who love to watch good cinematography as well entertaining suspense and thrill coupled by romantic charms. Daniel Craig matches to Timothy Dalton, however, he exceeds in truculence and ferocity of his purpose.

Lastly, the James Bond theme music (which has always been a hallmark and source to boast the Bond image during his heroic scenes) is regretfully absent throughout the film, only played at the end while detailing the cast.

Not Bad, Not so Good .... in between.. O.K.
8/10
Finally...Bond is back.
lee_a_scott8 January 2007
The whole debate about this movie seems to have been whether or not Daniel Craig would make a good Bond, without anyone really pointing out the two sides of the coin. I guess those who, like me, think that he was great in the role, have maybe read the books and remember Bond as a cold-hearted predator (whether killing or seducing) with no time for love, Dr Jones! The people who thought he was rubbish are probably devoted to the films which, over the last 21 movies, have pretty much established the wise-cracking, eyebrow-raising, faintly camp ladies man which Daniel Craig quite positively isn't. (There's also the folk moaning about Chris Cornell's opening song, which I also thought was fine.) So, putting that burning issue aside, what of the movie? Well, overall I thought it was great. Not perfect by any means (a few scenes go on too long, and a slightly shorter running time may have made the movie tighter), but thoroughly enjoyable and both a reinvention and return to form of Britain's best special agent. To those moaning that this somehow isn't a Bond film, I ask "why not?" It has Aston Martin's, death, pretty girls (Eva Green has some rather eye-catching dresses!), casinos, bad buys, M, and some crazy stunts. Sure, there's no Q and no lame jokes, but are they needed? No, not at this point. This is a top notch Bond film, or, indeed, just a top notch film anyway and, once the dust has settled, will most likely be listed up there with Goldfinger as one of Bond's best.
7/10
Stylish, Engaging Resurrection of the Franchise
SpaaceMonkee23 October 2021
Casino Royale has all the trademarks of the Bond franchise: suave spy, witty dialogue, attractive women, slick rides, cool gadgetry, and, unfortunately, a long plot that veers into the realm of the highly convoluted.

Rating Bond films runs into the problem of whether solely to rank them against each other or whether to score them as movies independent of the Bond attributes/baggage. As much as anyone, I will see a Bond film simply because it's a Bond film, but, having seen them all, it's hard to deny that that often includes a lowering of expectations. Many good Bond films are mediocre movies - the Roger Moore era in particular included several duds, and Pierce Brosnan took part in some painful entries - but the series also occasionally churns out a gem. I'd put Skyfall, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and probably Goldfinger and Goldeneye into that latter category.

Casino Royale comes close, but it's not quite there. The first two thirds of the movie are excellent, but the final third nearly collapses under the weight of an implausibly rapid love interest and exceedingly confusing plot twists. As a Bond film, it's one of the best, but as a film on its own, I say 7/10.
10/10
Bond, stripped down, lean and mean, yet 007 to the core.
joseph-26727 November 2006
In my 52 years, since 'Doctor No' onward, from the wild and windswept movie drive-ins in Kansas, I feel like I grew up with this 007 guy.

A Bond movie was and is forevermore "the ticket" if you want to see great action, beautiful women, and exotic location shots. And oh yeah, all of it soaked with that soundtrack, variations of which comprise best movie theme of all time.

Casino Royal knocked my socks off, plain and simple.

With par-excellent direction, editing and cinematography, it's really the brain+brawn combo that is highlighted throughout. There is such a level of detail in these scenes that it will likely take a few viewings to really catch it all. But the real payoff here is the story behind the story.

Basically you "get it" that James Bond is fallible. He's not just steely-eyed-mean. Not just focused to almost super human levels. But also yes, dare I say it; He actually makes mistakes, which is THE thing that makes this character one of the most powerful Bonds put ever. As with the mythical heros of the past it's the flawed aspect, that Achilles' heal factor that really oils this theme machine. It is also an understatement to say that Daniel Craig's complex edge-of-your-seat portrayal is not to be missed.

This 2006 entry depicts Bond's beginning. Low on gadgetry, nearly devoid of the trademark one-liners, and get ready for this Bond fans..... nearly all the chase scenes are on foot!!! And I'm not talking about simple chases here. We are treated with complicated, unusually heart pounding, gritty, death defying high altitude jaw dropping leaps and falls, bone jarring crash-throughs, flesh ripping, bullets flying, surprising cut-offs and twists in abundance, the likes of which I have never before seen. And all the while there are glimpses of intellect-in-motion as this 007 continuously calculates the next strategic turn as if in some rapid action, extremely physical game of chess.

But again, in my opinion it's the fallibility aspect that really fleshes out the James Bond character in full (perhaps for the first time ever). Add to this: impeccable taste, enduring confidence, unmatched style, riveting physical capability and an edgy coolness taken to a dramatic new level, all of it shaken - not stirred, and you probably have the best Bond movie that has ever been made.

Joseph Maas, LinkSky.com
Wasn't impressed with the movie or Daniel Craig.
tomprejean18 November 2006
Sorry- unlike some of the others- I wasn't at all impressed at all with the latest Bond effort. The plot line was sketchy and spasmodic at best; the film went way too long; and Daniel Craig seemed like a pruned-out version of Kevin Costner (if your gut instinct was that this Craig didn't seem like the Bond type before the movie- then your instincts were right on target). Clive Owens would have been a much, much better Bond.

Like others, I sat wondering what happened to the Q type gadgets, Miss Moneypenny, and all of the Bondian puns (I counted one- but there may have been two).

Sorrrry!- but it was most definitely a thumbs down experience for me.
9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not what I expected- in a good way
tomb_924 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the travesty that was Die Another Day I kind of gave up on a new Bond film being any good. The franchise underwent a complete makeover, instigating a new actor to play Bond and consequently a whole new style to the films. I still wasn't interested though and it took me a while to see Casino Royale. When I finally did catch up with it however I was very pleasantly surprised. The result of the makeover was something new, modern and exciting for the Bourne-generation, and yet still recognisable as a James Bond film. I was impressed with Daniel Craig's young, reckless take on the character and the plot, while taken heavily from the book, was still fairly original. Seeing the opening sequence in black and white was nice, as it explained the origins of 007, and the title sequence was nicely worked with an underrated title song. The stunts were just as impressive as the classic films, and still exciting. The film was fast-paced and yet it slowed down as the right times. My only quibble is with Vesper's death, it was too foreseeable. I'd have preferred something closer to the book, something that shocked audience and character alike. Otherwise, I really enjoyed it.
1/10
Casino Royale
thcompman1 April 2007
Let me start by saying I am a huge bond fan and I have seen every one.

I don't know who you people are who liked this film, but you are wrong.

This film sucked!!!!!! The Reason Bond films have been successful is because guys want to be Bond. He is everything they are not. Bond is supposed to be smooth, suave, sophisticated, and yet tough no nonsense get the job done at all costs kind of guy.

This new guy Daniel is none of that and on top of I do not like the story. It did not draw me in and there was no flow to the story.

If you ask me this one is another one hit wonder. I am very glad that I did not pay money at the movie theater to see this.
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Had its moments
jonsid5727 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film was ok but far too long at over 140 minutes . The opening scene is great where we see how Bond became a 00 . There are some good action scenes , a long chase a right in the hallway and at the airport . Unfortunately the film does drag at times . Mads Mikkelsen puts in a good performance as the evil Le Chiffre. Thé scène when he whips Bond is brutal . I found Craig a bit bland as Bond .
8/10
A well made answer to the Brosnan Era Bond
tlc880420 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The idea of James Bond as a character must change with the coming of each new generation, and also of each new actor who portrays him. While the role was blessed with Sean Connery as the penultimate and timeless Bond, so too was each new generation graced with a unique and talented man to fill those formidable shoes.

Such a man is found in Daniel Craig. He is in many ways the antithesis to Pierce Brosnan's ultra suave and sarcastic Bond. He is built like a true human weapon, with the muscles and agility to match. He is brutal, able to take down enemies not only with stealth and cunning, but with sheer nerve and incredible stamina. The opening foot chase scene is not to be missed.

This film truly shows the journey of Bond, of what makes him the man we know. No other film is so ambitious as to make any mark of progress in the character. When Connery arrived on the scene he was a man fully set in his ways, with none of the boisterous swagger of youth, but only the air of confidence one has when he has perfected his art. All that is Bond was not written in the first 2 hours of this film, but was forged in gunfire and blood. Even the clothes show the journey. From the off the rack 2 pieces and Hawaiian prints in the first section to the classic tailored tuxedo and the immaculate 3 piece at the the conclusion, we see where clothes truly make the man.

Back too is the Bond villain of old, one who is menacing and formidable in his way, but not some hackneyed cookie cutter bent on world domination. LeChiffre is a perfect mix of the old and the new. He is vastly intelligent and calculating, but not strong willed, which is what gives Bond the edge he needs to win. Even the character quirk of an eye weeping blood is just fantastic. That is a villain. Who else WEEPS blood? Also the steadily increasing efficiency of Bond's methods are a sight to behold, we see them come full circle in the span of the film.

Vesper Lynd to is an underrated performance. She matches up to Bond's abilities and shows emotional range never before witnessed in a Bond movie, particularly dwarfing Halle Berry's American agent in Die Another Day. She belongs among the great actresses to play such a role, and was instrumental in forging our Bond, who I am excited to see take on the new form of SMERSH in the coming sequels.

Overall Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond for our generation, and hopefully will prove to hold his own in the timeless tradition of Connery and Dalton, and he will continue this franchise in the proper direction. Here's hoping the sequels stay equally faithful to good storytelling and real stunts, not that CGI nonsense that bloated the Brosna era.

8 Out of 10, not a ten because they're going to make me wait years to see another installment!
6/10
Guns and kissing...
AndreaWeaver122 February 2022
It's an action movie. Shooting, fighting, running, gambling, bombs, sex, the government, evil foreigners trying to mess with our Western way of life, etc. Casino Royale hits all the marks of a great action film and works as a great catalyst for the future of Daniel Craig's James Bond. I liked it, but wasn't overly enthused. Perhaps if I had seen it in 2006 when this particular Bond franchise was beginning I would have rated it higher. All in all though, a fun watch!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brutal!
mblueyesm26 November 2006
A 007 movie stripped from fancy gadgets and overly eager girls but, maybe because of that, a more visceral one. Makes all the others look rotten by age and repetition. The best since Goldeneye! Daniel Craig is superb. Any woman would gladly loose all her money on poker just to have him stare at her for hours. Eva Green is like no other bond girl. Not futile, not loud... You can't really tell if the actors are good, the script is brilliant or the director is talented.It's all three!! A movie for Bond lovers and movie lovers in general. Only one thing missing. Like Desmond Llewelyn said once: "You must keep fantasy with Bond!" I hope they'll remember that next time and bring John Cleese back.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
really good, in the end a bit too long
t_a_b7928 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
first of all: i am not a bond-fan. i have never been one, but that could change, if they keep Craig.

the script was good; i even would have given 9/10, if the ending had been shorter. the whole i-save-you-from-the-waters-of-venice-thing did not work at all. but each action-sequence before that one did: the chase, the airplane, etc.; all the violence was believable.

the girls were beautiful, and the product-placement wasn't as disturbing as in former bonds. as a poker-fan i loved the poker-scenes, they were well shot and thrilling to the max.

hopefully, the next bonds keep the style of casino royale...

great action-cinema, a must-see.
8/10
Easily my favorite....
TheWylde27 November 2006
I am not the biggest fan of Bond movies. They have always been a bit silly to me and over the years I have seen them all but get most of them confused with each other. For those of you in the same boat as me, those that always thought the movies were a bit too silly to take as a serious action movie, this is the 007 movie for you. Everyone has mentioned the grittiness of the movie and the performances ad-nausea(sp?) so I will just skip ahead to my main opinion and leave it at this: As an action movie fan that never loved 007 movies this movie kicks plenty of ass without crossing over into that Bad Boys 2, Die Hard 3 arena of the absurd.

First Blood, Terminator 2, Die hard... these are the types of action movies I have always loved and Casino Royal will look nice on the DVD shelf right next to them.

(The movie could have been trimmed by about 20 minutes, hence 8/10.)
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best Bond movie: enough said
mhendrickx10 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As a hardcore Bond fan I fell in love with this film from the very first time I saw it.

In my eyes, this is the purest, the truest interpretation from the character we have seen so far.

Simply said, this film is absolutely amazing and blows your mind. From the great black & white pre - titles to perhaps the best titles sequence ever. From the free running chase to the simply beautiful interiors of London. From the mysterious, super cool Le Chriffre to the Judi Dench's worried M. From the hart broken lover to the stone cold killer.

Style and action are perfectly in balance.

The best Bond movie: enough said.
6/10
Would have worked better as a Bond film
UnderPressure17 November 2006
Daniel Craig was a fantastic Bond, and Judi Dench was a pleasure as always.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig a success
steve_fantail197 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Pierce Brosnan (did he quit or get fired?) 'left' the role of James Bond many fans were outraged. The most popular theory was that he was sacked from the job and after Brosnans departure Quentin Tarantino, who wanted to direct, packed up and left too since he wanted Brosnan. When British Actor Daniel Craig stepped in as 007 he was treated extremely badly. A website was set up www.craignotbond.com and fans desperately wanted Brosnan to come back and reprise the role. But the filmmakers ignored their taunts and claims and kept on with their casting. Dutch actor Mads Mikkelsen was cast as the villain Le Chiffre and Judi Dench re-prised her role as 'M'. French actress Eva Green was cast as Vesper Lynd and the character was very hard to cast since many actresses like Thandie Newton, Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron, Sienna Miller and Rose Bynre turned it down. So we move to the 'prequel' of 007. He is freshly promoted to double 00 status and he does do some fairly stupid things (eg the Madagascar Embasy). Banker, villain and mathematics genius Le Chiffre enters in a high stakes poker tournament in Montengro at the Casino Royale to recoup his loses and make a considerable $150m to re-finance his terrorist investors. Bond is entered in the tournament by the Britsh treasury and the agent that gives Bond the money is Vesper Lynd. When Bond overdoes his ego he makes a mistake which puts Le Chiffre in a clear position to win. Vesper won't fund him anymore but CIA agent Felix Leiter will. After the mistake is corrected it is Bond who is the winner. Le Chiffre is infuriated and desperately attempts to get the money with any means necessary... I liked Casino Royale. It may be the best Bond since the 60's and Daniel Craig has made all those critics and fans eat their nasty words. Mads Mikkelsen is very good as the villain- I especially loved the scarred eyeball- and he looks tremendously evil at the poker table. The Italian Beauty Caterina Murino was very sexy indeed but some of the things her character did (walking out on Bond) were very strange. Ivana Milicevic as Valenka (Le Chiffre's assassin) isn't a match for Famke Janssen's Xenia- but she does look good when she is smirking and planting poison in drinks. Judi Dench gives another great performance but she does start to looked bored as 'M'. Eva Green was beautiful to look at but I don't know if her performance was really that great. Some of her scenes looked only half done and the dialog between Bond and Vesper did tend to zip in and out. I can see why Moneypeeny and 'Q' weren't added- since this film is meant to be a dark, nasty side of Bond. Moneypenny and 'Q' are similar comic reliefs. Most of the one-liners have gone too- so the dark side of Bond is well brought out. Overall, this Bond film was exceeding well done and Daniel Craig has done more with the character than some other actors have done in continual reprises.
10/10
Sorry Daniel...
adebanji16 November 2006
This is an open letter to Daniel Craig. many of us might feel this way after watching Casino Royale.

Dear Daniel,

From the very day i heard you were playing Bond,I was one of the many who heavily criticised you being the next Bond. Blond hair,blue eyes,cant drive manual,etc.I said it all.

I was one of the first to watch Casino Royale in Trinidad and Tobago on 15/11/06.Up till now ,im still kinda short of words! You are just what everyone has been waiting for a very long time. You were very impressive and convincing. Excellent Performance!!!

After watching this,it made sense why Pierce Brosnan was axed from the role.The Bond franchise wasn't competitive anymore compared with the likes of the Bourne franchise. An older Bond simply doesn't work anymore.

With what i saw yesterday,Bond is surely back.

Sorry for the harsh criticism. I was very wrong.
10/10
Best Bond movie? No. Best action movie? Yes!!
I think it's hard to review this as a "typical" Bond movie, because it is just too psychological for that. "Typical" Bond movies are more light-weighted, in my opinion.

But that does not make the movie worse! I would say that this is one of the best action movies ever, because of its coolness, its story, the action, etc. I really like watching it as an action movie/thriller with psychological acts inbetween.

Fun to watch, also after the 1000th time! I totally recommend it. 🙂
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Harkers back need to step forward...
animatralex30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"Where are the naked girls in the opening credits? Why is Bond blond? Where are the gadgets? Where is all the usual Bond stuff that makes us feel safe and doesn't challenge any conventions?" I honestly don't understand all the griping and complaining about Casino Royale. Granted, it is a departure from the typical Bond film - there are no underground lairs, no army of henchmen and no Rolex watch that can detonate bombs, fire lasers and make the toast at the same time. But so what? Isn't it refreshing to find that someone actually took the time to read Flemming's original novel and think to themselves "Hey, this is a pretty good spy story without all the extra flourishes. And that Bond, he's a pretty brutal kinda guy." Casino Royale brings (in my opinion) some much needed reality to a franchise that, quite frankly, was getting silly (the dude with diamonds in his face??? Please).

Craig does a fine job, convincingly playing the agent who slowly gains in confidence and arrogance as mission after mission goes by. And to my mind, the torture scene only serves to show us the true mettle of Bond - something that none of the other Bonds have had to deal with. Yes he gets hurt. But that makes him more impressive in my eyes.

As a Bond film, there are flaws, but there's no real need to point them out - every film in the long-running series has glaring omissions and continuity errors. Again, so what? Go see the film. It's fun, it's exciting and you might even like it...
8/10
Neo-Bond
MovieJunkie197627 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
**Warning! Spoiler Information Inside!**

After a brief pause , much discussion and the impact of both September 11 and the receipt of rights granting filming of such , Eon drafted newcomer Daniel Craig. The franchise then took the bold risk of updating the context to a more mature aspect of life , for the 21st outing of James Bond in , what was the first novel by Ian Fleming , Casino Royale (2006).

We meet SAS serviceman James Bond who is tasked with the elimination of his section chief for selling information. After this Introduction Bond is inserted into field operations as 007. He quickly uncovers a terrorist network.

The movie script writers (Neal Purvis,Robert Wade and Paul Haggis)create a modernization of Fleming's work , and are spot on. Subtle changes such as setting and location enhance the cinema experience correctly for an audience half a century removed from its roots. Controversial first time Bond (Daniel Craig) brings us a secret agent we have not seen the likes of since the days of Sean Connery. Correctly cast is Eva green (Dark Shadows),Playing the character defining role of treasury girl Vesper Lynd.

Martin Campbell (Goldeneye) , Takes another crack at launching a new James Bond and does it with deft skill , almost immune to the dramatic shift of the character's universe. Many supporters enhance the storyline well in character. Of note , Felix Lighter (Jeffrey Wright) is portrayed more accurately as the global officer needed for this type of environment , Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkleson) is more sinister in this script than in Fleming's work and the movie is that much better for them both.

This was a clear Re-Boot, and as Die another Day (2002) proved , Long overdue. Adaptation is the key to long life in all things , film is no exception. This decision has reset this franchise , made it relevant to its consumers political and entertainment tastes , and has made it a certain success that may continue for decades to come.

One of the Best.

Four Stars(of 5.)
10/10
a new generation of James Bond
big_marcelo8 December 2006
I'll start by saying I'm a fan of 007 - specially Sean Connery.

when Daniel Craig was first announced for the role, I wasn't particularly enthusiastic on the choice - primarily because I didn't know him well and I heard rumours about Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen - both suited the perennial James Bond stereotype.

That said, I watched Layer Cake, with Daniel Craig, and was blown away by his performance and also how charismatic he was!! well... I was then looking forward to watching 007 and seeing him in action and how the 'new bond' would go...

The film opened yesterday in Sydney and I watched it tonight with a good mate..... both him and I were absolutely in awe of how good the movie was... not how good the 007 movie was... but how good the 'movie' was.... this is a truly great movie if you are a fan of 007 or not.... can't wait to buy my copy in DVD/HD DVD ...

top action movie.... best 007 movie I've seen... still love Sean Connery, but this is a different Bond...

Daniel Craig... you kicked ass ... well done... can't wait to watch the next installment.. keep them coming!!! Cheers, Marcelo
9/10
Bond James Bond
Cemetarygirl28 April 2007
Well I for one thought Connery to be the quintessential Bond though I know that Flemming thought differently. Now with Craig they finally hit the nail on the head. Superb! I was so impressed from the opening sequel to the closing credits. What a journey and just as you think its over (of course this is NOT a clockwatching movie) off it goes again. Bond truly in love, Bond square one from the invention of the famous cocktail to the reason why he is reticent to love. I was a bit disappointed that there where no Bond lines and then 3/4 way through (I think) they began. The scenes in Venice, amazing. The card game captivating and the introduction of Jeffery Wright a surprise touch. Maybe because I usually see him in totally different roles. The torture scene was torturous and I bet it had a lot of men cringing in their seats. James Bond has certainly been brought into the 21st Century and I for one am glad. The only reason I didn't give it 10 out of 10 is because I want to see if the next Bond can top that. Well done Mr Craig a role to be proud of and those eyes hummmmmm
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
007... back to basics and better than ever!
Dangerous_Dave9013 April 2008
Newly-promoted to the 00 section, James Bond (Daniel Craig) thwarts a scheme of shady financier LeChiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). LeChiffre stages a high-stakes poker tournament in Montenegro, hoping to recoup his lost money, and M (Judi Dench) has Bond enter the game, intent on bankrupting his opponent. He is teamed with Vesper Lynd (Green), a treasury official who holds the purse-strings on Bond's table stakes.

Contrary to pre-release nay-sayers, Daniel Craig has done more with James Bond in one film than some previous stars have in multiple reprises. This is terrific stuff, again positioning 007 as the action franchise to beat.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Im not a bond fan , this was the bond film i was waiting for!
asd2931 December 2018
Despite all the bad reviews of this film and daniel craig i think this is the best bond film ever! it was realistic compared to other entries and all die hard bond fans are missing the point of this groundbreaking movie , i remember watching the movies post connery and most of them are downright rudiculous - lazenby in her mss , yes one of the best bond movies but lazenby was unknown and didnt really make an impact but all due respect to george it was a fine effort , roger moore was good casting but his films were almost comedic and werent worthy to flemings original bond , Timothy dalton made another favourite THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS ,but liscense to kill was poor , dalton was good but again he only had to work with what he had and he just seemed like a replacement which seemed disrespectful to the actor, who i think he is underated , then theres BROSNAN, probably the most handsome out of all the bonds casted but the films he was in were all over blown action popcorn movies and pierce seemed to be -moore and connery all in one which ultimately saved the bond franchise then came die another day which nearly ruined the franchise altogether. So barbara broccolli decided to make a calculated change , find a rough diamond real character who can actually act and who brings realism to the character - ex SAS not the best looking of guys but attractive in his own way , daniel craig brought heart to the part which was clearly missing in previous entries hes not superhuman he can fall in love and get hurt and he brings more grit to the role , it would be no fun been james bond in real life which i think CASINO ROYALE brings across , the film sells to day to day women who hate james bond and phoney wanna be men who claim to be something what they are not , women want realism and excitement which CRAIG pulls off in this fine film .
7/10
Best Bond
sunraider17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm not a huge fan of Bond movies, but I love the James Bond character. What has always turned me off from the movies were the over-the-top villains, unbelievable stunts, and ridiculous gadgets. This Bond movie has excellent action sequences, especially the opening chase sequence which supposedly features the co-creator of "free running", but they're actually believable (although not necessarily probable). Gone are silly gadgets in favor of old-fashioned guns, torture, poisoned drinks, and repartee between fairly well written characters. It's almost as if, by going back to the first Ian Flemming novel, the producers were set free from having to follow the tired old Bond formula.

Daniel Craig is a realistic government secret agent. He's human in that he bleeds, makes bad calls, and has vulnerabilities. Craig's more gritty and realistic Bond allows the writers to give more thought to the characters relationships with others. In previous Bond flicks the agent's relationship with his minders back in London was peripheral at best. Here there are the beginnings of a deeper, more emotional relationship, with M being something of a mother hen to the presumably orphaned Bond.

The only weakness in the movie, if it really is one, is that the Bond girl, Eva Green, is NOT stunning and their relationship is tepid. I was shocked when the character produces her business card reading "Vesper Lynd." Up to that point I figured the attractive but not stunning woman was a brief walk-on character. Ursulla Andress, Jane Seymore, Maud Adams, even Grace Slick---really stunning and/or unique women who literally could stop traffic. My favorite moment of the film was finding out Vesper was "bad," in a way, and Bond had to forget about her and move on! My noon-time audience was fairly large, and the reaction to the movie was very positive. Hopefully, this film will do well and more Bonds with Craig will follow in the same style.
8/10
The most realistic spy movie of all time
jonarim17 November 2006
This is one of the few movies that I actually changed my mind about half way through the movie. After half an hour I was disappointed , where had the suave , charismatic bond gone , where were the gadgets , where was the action, even the storyline had not really developed.

Then I realised that not only did we have a new actor playing Bond but almost who Bond was had sort of changed from the Brosnan era. What we see here is an ultra realistic (as far as possible) of what Ian Fleming wrote and certainly not the comic book character that had developed over the last few Bond movies. Afer seeing the last Bond movie with the invisible car its a welcome relief to get back to some sanity.

If you are looking for wall to wall action with the typical British spy (or so our USA buddies think) then this is not for you.

However if your wanting probably the most realistic spy movie you will ever see then this is the ultimate.

It will be interesting to see if this realism and lack of superhero stunts appeal at the box office , otherwise we will be back to the comic book Bond again.
1/10
Openings should have some sense of logic
jkokich3 August 2021
This is just about the opening chase sequence.

It is ludicrous. Worse, it's stupid.

Yes, all Bond opening chase sequences are outlandish, but if they don't make any sense, at all, it starts the movie off badly, to say the least. The only reason this chase was done the way it was, was to show off the villain's parkour style. Exciting? Sure, but totally ridiculous. Why does he keep climbing? How does he, and Bond, know exactly where everything is, including a small opening near a ceiling that he vaults through? Then, Bond busts through the drywall. How did he know he would be able to do that? It could have been brick, for all he knew.

Incredible, yes, but it can't be stupid.
4 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow, this impressed me.
aingmire-2656317 August 2021
The first movie in the Daniel Craig series: Casino Royale. This movie is incredible, from start to finish. Daniel Craig gives an amazing performance and it really has you on the edge of your seat during the poker games.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Awesome movie
zachmosley26 July 2021
I loved this Bond movie, because I thought Daniel Craig did a great job as James Bond. The action scenes were great, the acting was awesome and the poker game was interesting. Also I'm watching these James Bond movies before No Time to Die comes out soon.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
007 is back and better than ever.
brianthomas17 November 2006
After seeing the first showing of "Casino" last night in l.a. I understand exactly what the casting people saw when they decided to cast Daniel Craig as the next 007. The movie itself was action packed, deft and loyal to everything that you have come to expect from a James Bond film. Daniel Craig showed versatility in his acting when it was called for and an extraordinary animal instinct in his fighting or action sequences. The storyline is on par, the women were exquisite to the eye and more evolved that some of the patsy female characters that have been in the past 007 films and Mr. Craig was as suave as any of the 00's in the past. After all, these films are all going to have great action sequences and beautiful women and dastardly villains but the one thing that makes or breaks a 007 film is who plays 007. Daniel Craig hit a home run and all the while showed a range and complexity to the character that i hadn't seen in any of his predecessors. I was apprehensive about the choice of Craig before seeing the film because he isn't the typical pretty-boy bond that we've seen in the past but his sculpted sex appeal, vulnerability and subtleties as an actor make him the best 007 since Mr. Connery and maybe the best ever. Great stuff in all regards.
10/10
Best reboot of a franchise since Batman
Mischief81023 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What I really liked about this was that 007 is no longer a "good guy." In fact, there are no "good guys" in this reboot, nor in the two films that follow. James Bond is simply the baddest bad ass, and he happens to be working for the right side.

I think this is what Ian Fleming really intended 007 to be--someone to be feared, someone who can achieve Spider-Man physical accomplishments, but someone who always gets the job done regardless of the obstacles thrown before him.

I also liked the plot twists and turns in this film. You simply can't miss any bit of dialogue.

What I didn't care for (much) was Bond's attachment to Vesper. You just somehow knew that this love affair wasn't going to turn out well. This guy is too cold, too hardened to ever let someone get under his skin.

This film's treatment of "good guy" vs "bad guy" reminds me a lot of Eastwood's "Unforgiven." There were not really any good guys in that film, either. Just bad asses vs other bad asses, with the right protagonists coming out ahead at the end.
9/10
One of the best Bond films
parkerviale18 October 2021
What a classic Bond film, one that I've watched many times. This film presents the proper way of introducing a new Bond (Daniel Craig). Craig, in my opinion, has portrayed the best Bond in the entire franchise. The villain, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) is probably the best villain in all of the films. The way he looks with the scar across his eye and the way he acts makes him one of those villains that stands out, and one you will always remember. The cinematography is very well done, considering it's from 2006. The parkour/foot chase scene near the beginning of the film is by far one of my favorite chase scenes from any film. I really love how unique the setting was and how smooth everything felt. This film is one I consider so entertaining, so I highly recommend it to anyone who likes a good action/mystery story.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bold. Brutal. Bond.
the_sacrosanct16 November 2006
After the travesty of Die Another Day it was inevitable that the franchise would have to be taken in a new direction, but I would never have expected it could be done as well as Casino Royale. The story no longer plays second fiddle to the gadgets, Bond is no longer a pantomime action hero and the product placement no longer dictates the action.

Daniel Craig may not have a jet black mane of hair on his chest, but he looks perfectly comfortable in a dinner jacket AND looks as if he's seriously considering killing you (a licence to kill would be pretty useless otherwise, right?). Everything from his cold, emotionless blue eyes to his thuggish swagger suggest that an incredibly painful death will become you if you get in his way. Gadgets are a last resort for this Bond.

My only complaint would be that the next film probably won't arrive for at least two years. :(
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worst in years
dennis_thomsen_30016 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig as James Bond IS a very bad idea - the worst Bond ever! If what they intended to do was to make a movie entirely different from the other James Bond movies why make it a James Bond then??? just so stupid it makes you laugh. When you go watch James Bond you should know what you are gonna get - this was s***! It was a good movie - but it should never have been a James Bond. The only great thing is the Villains - not because I prefer the down to earth type instead of the "I want to rule the world" type, but because Le Chiffre is played masterfully by Mads Mikkelsen who by far is the most charismatic actor in this movie - he and Jesper Christensen delivers spotless and far better performances than the blond and talentless Daniel Craig. Eva Green might be hot but an actress not! Without Mikkelsen and Christensen I would have given it somewhere between 1 and 2 out of 10!
10/10
Probably one of the best Bonds ever made
odysseus-621 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I heard that Daniel Craig had been cast as Bond I was skeptical. This was based entirely on ignorance because for starters I'd never actually heard of him, nor seen him act. And lastly, when he turned up for the press launch with his longer hair, he looked uncomfortable. I've seen every Bond movie and love them all for different reasons. I particularly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond and though the over use of CGI was a disappointment in his last movie, I was eager to see him have one last shot at the role. Over th years I thought Connery was obviously the best, but I actually rate George Lazenby as having had the potential to equal him, his single stint was very impressive, but unfortunately it wasn't to be. With Brosnan he had the charm and ability to merge the cheese factor of the Roger Moore years with the edge of Connery... So enter the unknown Craig hot on the heels of Brosnan's box office smash and I was initially baffled... Then I decided to sit down and watch his movies. Layer cake, the Jacket and then I saw him in Munich. Very very quickly I realized here was a man who could act. Who could look very handsome one minute and be bloody ugly the next. An actor who is quite frankly a chameleon. I was suddenly very eager to see what we were to get with Craig, and bit by bit as the news about the film came out, my hopes grew.

What I didn't expect when sat down to watch Casino Royale, was to be so absolutely blown away by both his performance, and the earthiness of the script.

It's this simple. Craig IS Bond. My God. Not only did did he equal Connery, at times I think he was better. I want to see him again and again. While he's young. No long breaks between movies, grab this man by the throat and wring a few Bonds out back to back. Seriously. It would be a crime to squander this actor.

The movie itself isn't perfect, there are some very odd script gaffs. Why for example doesn't Vesper Lynd jut give the money over if she's being blackmailed. What was the point in using the poker match as her cover to lose the money to the bad guys. It was flimsy. And why was the money withdrawn as cash in the end. In the age of instant wire transfers if could have been easily lost in the money laundering wash of multiple front banks in seconds.

But none of that really matters. What matters is do you buy it at the time, and you do, and you do because the supporting cast is A1, but more importantly Craig is so iron fistedly believable as Bond.

I genuinely can't wait for the next one!
9/10
No dumb blondes, but intelligent brunettes, for Bond this time !
Queen_of_pentacles19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There is a saying, the one who is lucky in cards, isn't lucky in love ! And so the Bond who finally wins his card game, loses his lady love, as she succumbs to choking in water. Though she has cheated on him for money, due to pressures, Bond tries his level best to save her, but the lovely lady loses her life, in a very tragic way, locked behind the iron doors of the damn elevator, after the building crumbles like a pack of cards ! Daniel Craig is incredible, whether in a hot chase, or in the casino, or in delicately handled intimate scenes. Eva looks beautiful and has acted her role with character. Only wish, her hair styles should have been handled more competently, and her lip paint was not so goddy ! The villain ,with his trademark tic, is coldly cruel, specially in the torture scenes . Lady M is o.k., but got too many lines to speak, half of which, go overboard ! The director has succeeded in making this film, with a mind boggling speed, and the editing job is just superb ! This Bond, though may not be conventionally handsome, like the others, Roger Moore, or Pierce Brosnon, reminds of Connery, with that fold on his cheek, and the same masculine charm, and rugged features.

Worth Watching, for every thing one expects from a Bond movie !
4/10
Omg it was so bad
Moonstrike912 February 2019
I normally love Craig's Bond movies but omg, the plot was nonexistent in this one, and there were some seriously disjointed out of place moments, lines, etc. It was a hot mess. Daniel Craig is as hot as ever, and made some of the movie passable with his acting, as did the actress who played Vesper. Beyond that, this movie is a waste of time.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Much Better Bond!
opencad226 November 2006
This is the best Bond ever, and the best Bond movie ever. I took a moment to review the negative posts for this movie, and they uniformally discuss deviation from some fairytale, that demands a shallow cavalier spy playing with lots of flashy toys.

Well, this is a Bond movie with a real killer running the show. This Bond has an IQ, and the villains he faces are like those that populate this world . . . cold blooded killers who comfortably trade money for lives and torture people to get what they want.

This is a Bond who bleeds. You'll have no problem believing this guy came out of special forces and was chosen to be a 00. Its plain that this is a guy who has worked in the shadows so long there is _nothing_ he hasn't seen and very little he hasn't done.

See this movie. Enjoy the 3D Bond. Be glad the gadgets are gone and that this Bond lives in the 'real world'.
The poker game
McStick12 December 2006
The problem with the poker game, as anyone who plays Texas Hold'em knows, is that if Bond knows how to play, he would have folded way before the river card (fifth) card was turned over. No-one would call all those bets on the hope of drawing a straight, let alone a straight flush. The massive bets would have seen him fold. As it was, the game revealed that rather than being a good poker player, he played like a beginner, hoping for the right card to turn up, and not using intelligence, odds or pot odds to make his decision. Anyone who watches poker on television will know that rarely does a game end up with more than tow players going 'head to head', as good players decide to fold rather than risk their tournament lives on hoping for a bit of luck. Although I would recommend that if you are interested, watch the re-runs of the 2006 World Poker Championships. The winner, Jamie Gold picked up $12 million, and had a run of luck that has never been seen before
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good restart but...
dis-67 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
There are 2 main problems with this film : it is too long by 30 minutes and during the card game at Casino Royale it becomes the first boring Bond film ! This had a knock-on effect of making the Bond-Lynd story seem rushed and more superficial than it should have been and the amazing Eva Green should have had more screen time.

There are traces of the spectacular of the old Bonds especially in the building site, Miami airport and Venice sequences but Mr Craig's excellent portrayal brought to mind Timothy Dalton's Bond more than anyone else.

Other than that there really should have been a warning that some of the action takes place in the "Body Worlds" exhibition of Dr. von Hagens - personally I found this section more objectionable than anything in the story including the infamous torture scene.
10/10
The Perfect Bond for today's world
LeandraZZZ18 November 2006
I saw the movie last night (17 Nov 06) in the UK -- totally brilliant! What a marvellous evening of pure - and purely professional - entertainment! I enjoyed every action-packed, self-controlled, tender and vulnerable moment. Daniel Craig is terrific - as well as terrifically gorgeous ! Without derogating one bit from his own original approach to the character (and what a refreshing update!), Daniel Craig is So-o-o-o Dry and Cool (neither shaken nor stirred) and is surely, without doubt, the new Steve McQueen - the Steve McQueen of The-Thomas-Crown-Affair-meets-Bullitt - and he's British !!! Congratulations to ALL involved in making this movie - from the script to the music to the (relevant) special effects to the stunts to the locations to the pure True Grit involved in it all ! MORE PLEASE !!!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Possibly my best Bond!
LilacLilyLover5 December 2006
Daniel Craig is simply phenomenal in this movie. I did not catch him "acting" in one moment. He just seemed made for this grittier, rougher Bond! The high-action scenes were excellent! I love this new vision for James Bond movies, less gadgets and disappearing cars etc .. and more raw action! Back to the basics..!! It is a shame that so many people went out of their way to criticise Daniel Craig before the movie even came out! Give the man a chance, go check out the movie. Even if he is not your ideal "bond" candidate, there is no denying that he gave a fabulous performance in this film.

He is possibly my next fave Bond after Sean Connery! Can't wait for the next one!!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ian Fleming may not be that happy
argo4822 November 2006
The new "Bond" looks more like a KGB's villain of the original series. Too ruthless, leak of action, too super-hero, no class, too slow ... all the movie goes from one excess to the other. Even the "psycological profile reading" that the main features try to enhance in several scenes is not enough to promote the new style 007. The non-existing plot tries to link to other recent movies through "M" but that's not enough to make a good connection and the main line is lost since plot fixing patches seems to take over it. Then neither the most weak of previous "Bonds" would never have "gave a damn" about the way his martini's made. Unfortunately the ending leave room for the sequel.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ian Fleming's Bond
gautam240220 November 2006
That is what this movie is all about, re-booting the Bond franchise and reviving Bond as he was meant to be... and showing us how he got there. Those who love Bond movies, and I do, should immediately identify this as a flawless masterpiece in the series. The length of the movie might bother some, but me - i hardly noticed. What I noticed were the cool touches and nods marking a change and renewal.

* Male vocal at the start with clothed male shadows, not a female vocal and nude female shadows. Btw I think the song was cool too.

* Showing how becoming 00 is not easy

* The opening chase sequence - it said a lot to me. Action movies these days are a lot about the kind of moves the running bomber showed. Bond is different - he can keep up and do it his own way - direct and smart.

* Smart, impetuous, emotionless when killing but driven by anger. Bond's a rough uncut diamond and in this movie he's put under a grinding stone.

* Even the car was realistic - an Aston Martin DBS that rolled and shattered like any other cars

* In fact this movie reset the whole franchise to how it should always have been - centered on people, with gadgets as peripheral

* smart and sexy women, a true counterfoil to Bond, not props

* Bond getting beaten up. Real spies win as many times as they lose. And they are not supermen. Die Another Day started this way, but then lost its way. Casino Royale never sets a foot wrong.

Finally I couldn't help noticing, as the movie wound to an end, the references to a shadowy powerful organisation. Just wondering aloud - are they bringing SPECTRE back?

Recreating Bond like this was a beautiful masterwork, how'll they treat Blofeld and his minions? I wonder and hope that things don't meander again...
7/10
The darker James Bond we knew before...
jsataluri24 July 2007
.....as Sean Connery is back in the form of Daniel Craig. In this performance he is more brutal, more dangerous but with a tender heart which becomes more evident towards the end. In his first mission ever, he is sent to foil the plans of Le Chiffre, an evil banker who has to deal with terrorists after his money. To win his money back, Le Chiffre organizes and participates in a poker game in Casino Royale in Montenegro. With the help of British accountant, Vesper Lynd, Bond decides to play the game as well, to defeat Le Chiffre and to get him to disclose the terrorists' name. But this is not an easy task in mind for Bond, for more dangerous acts including double crossing and murders come into the picture that could destroy his already dangerous profession....

As the new Bond, Daniel Craig provides brutality, dangerousness and great acting that will cement his career as the next Bond. Mads Mikkelsen plays a great villain living a double life as the evil banker and as the desperate human being staking his profession and life to save his money. Other performances include Eva Green as the sultry Vesper Lynd who may or may not be who she is, Judi Dench as M, Jeffrey Wright as Felix, and Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis who provides a different side of an agent that you will not perceive him to be.

The action scenes are fantastic and will keep you thrilled and waiting for more. The cinematography is also excellent as well as the music. Many people will not believe this to be the best Bond ever, but this is the most truest Bond you'll ever see.

9/10.
10/10
The best Bond ever
hchais14 May 2007
This movie is excellent. It is full of non-stop action, adventure, and lots and lots of thrills. This clearly the best Bond ever. It is just so good. It has everything a modern action movie needs and everything that a James Bond movie needs. It is just amazing. It has great special effects, surprisingly great acting, a really good story, and a good script. It is entertaining throughout and there are great shots. About ten minutes in, there is a great action scene. I don't want to say anything else, because that would ruin it for you. But there are still lots of other action scenes. Since there were only like 6 good action movies in 2006, I have to say that this is my favorite. This is also one of my favorite action movies ever. This was one of the best movies of the year. This was a great movie. 10/10.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale proves that James Bond is still alive and very well!
jessesigurdson6 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale, the 21st movie in the James Bond series is quite possibly one of the most well acted, well scripted of all the James Bond movies. This Bond movie; is one of the most believable ones of them all, with Daniel Craig putting up an amazing performance by taking up the role of James Bond from Pierce Brosnan. The movie takes place as Bond has just been promoted to a 00 agent. As he is tracking a terrorist in Madagascar, he finds himself beat up from the journey to track him and ends up killing his target and destroying his chances of catching the terrorist organization. While he was tracking the terrorist, there is a great chase scene which is planted very smoothly into the movie. Yet Bond independently decides to track the rest of the terrorist cell. By breaking into "M"s apartment he accesses MI6 with her computer and tracks his lead to the Bahamas. While there, he finds Dimitrios, and his girlfriend Solange. He then learns that Le Chiffre, a banker to terrorist organizations, is involved with Dimitrios. From secret service, he learns Le Chiffre is planning on having a High stakes poker game in Montenegro at the Le Casino Royale. MI6 assigns Bond to play against Le Chiffre, who is played very chilly and convincingly by Mads Mikkelsen.

While in Montenegro, "M" places, Bond under very beguiling, Vesper Lynd, who is played very well by Eva Green. While playing against Le Chiffre, dealing with his personal envy of Vesper, and the growing violence that progresses the longer they play, Bond is faced with one the roughest mission's in all of his movies. I personally it think is the most well made Bond movie of all of them and expertly played. If I thought Daniel Craig was not suited for the role before watching Casino Royale, I was certain of it, after. Daniel Craig plays Bond to the fullest and even passing Shaun Connery in his acting of James Bond. Bond, in this movie is not just a guy with a bunch of gadgets and invisible cars, he is an actual person that screws up and gets hurt a lot. By being more real and more damageable he really makes himself look even stronger then older Bond characters. Not only is Bond better in this film, the villain Mads Mikkelsen really puts up a great performance as the chilling Le Chiffre...Who even tortures Bond in the later part of the film. Another great actress in this film is Vesper Lynd who plays the self respected accountant of Bonds money fund from MI6, and his Love interest later in the film that makes him think twice about quitting his job as a 00 agent. Overall, this movie really shines better then almost every Bond movie I can remember and pulls off Bond like never before with great acting, a smooth story, and a lot of action in-between.
9/10
something new
yah_kob20 November 2006
For me, the 007 genre had become a bit too formulaic in recent years, but I thought I had to see the new one anyway. I was pleasantly surprised: it wasn't quite as gory (bloody) as the musical "overture" suggested it would be, but the violence often had a harder edge, to show us that people really suffered from it. The central romantic interest had more pathos and sweetness than one expects in a Bond film. These things contributed to a "darker" film, but more realistic at the same time. The use of locations such as St. Mark's Square in Venice and Lake Como up in the Italian Alps was an extra treat which made the movie a pleasure to watch. The opening chase scene was a little too over-the-top, but it does get your attention.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Film of the Year
home-14219 November 2006
This is Bond in a different league. You actually feel that Bond is a real life secret agent and not an Armani mannequin. No pointless gadgets. A proper film. You actually felt that he might not make it. Or at least an important part of him wouldn't (see the film and you know what I mean!) Daniel Craig was excellent. Menacing, amusing, intelligent. The film flies by. I'm sure there was a bit of CGI but mostly raw action. Craig must have worked REALLY hard for his money. Action sequences, yes. But relevant ones. Female interest, yes. But no bad puns or throwaway lines. A proper script.

Go and see it at the cinema, don't wait for DVD!!!!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Simply superb..........
bizz_wizz200320 November 2006
This movie is just outstanding!Kind of like a "Batman Begins" but for the Bond franchise.The biggest reason it's such a fantastic success is because (this may sound a little weird for a bond movie) of the lack of use of crazy gadgetry that the previous films did.They emphasized more on Bond's own abilities and for once you really get to see him getting his hands dirty.Suffice to say we get to see why he was given 00 status in the 1st place.To me Daniel Craig has made the role his own.No one since the days of Sean Connery has ever made Bond look this good.I give the movie a 10 out of 10 simply because it's in a different league compared to the previous films.I've watched it once but cant wait to watch it again.Those of you who haven't better go watch it soon.Enjoy!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is taking Bond back to Fleming's creation.
augie710731 March 2007
I am a James bond fan in every sense of the phrase. I have seen every movie multiple times, as well as, read every novel. I see this movie as being exactly what Fleming envisioned as he wrote. Daniel Craig takes us back to what James Bond was originally. Tough, resourceful and enamored with women. While it is easy to represent this using a script derived from a Fleming original, it takes someone like Daniel Craig to deliver it appropriately. I can appreciate the lack of extravagant gadgets. I think the casting is this movie was wonderful. Not only is Craig perfect for the role, but the other main characters are also well chosen. Eva Green is stunningly beautiful and her acting is superb. Mads Michelson is the perfect "bad guy", if you will. He is cunning, intelligent and truly believable. I applaud the entire team involved in the production of this movie for giving us a true representation of James Bond's original assignment in MI6. A must see for even the casual Bond fan and a turning point for the movie followers who consider Bond a somewhat stretched character profile.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I was going to give it 10 then...
chas_newport20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Half way through this I distinctly remember thinking it was the best Bond film I've ever seen... The switch of emphasis from CGI to live stunts is a great idea. The fight scenes and one scene near the end can only be described as "vicious". I was amazed this level of violence is allowed in a 12A film - my wife and I both said our nephew shouldn't be allowed to see it. That aside, however, to see Bond bloodied and bruised makes a real change from the "Straighten the tie and walk away" style we've become used to. There are no "witty" one liners, very few puerile sexist comments and a feel of gritty reality which is a genuine return to the early films before political correctness and the desire for a family audience began to dilute things.

But by the end I had a vague feeling of disappointment I couldn't quite put my finger on... and I think it comes down to two main things. The middle part of the film lacks pace and seems too long - I heard another audience member say the middle 45 minutes were "boring"! But the thing which broke the spell for me was the cynical use of the Aston Martin DBS for what must have been less than 60 seconds footage. The exposure of this vehicle in the trailers and the teasers and interviews gave the impression it played a major part but it doesn't... I'm a self confessed petrol-head and a huge fan of car chases and I get a very strong feeling I've been conned. It's been a staple of the Bond genre for ever and I now realise one of the things I most look forward to when watching one... I was gutted.

I would have given this 10 if weren't for this...
Revitalizing a franchise
John_Truby7 January 2010
It's tough to say that a movie franchise generating revenue in the hundreds of millions per picture is in need of an overhaul. But the Bond pictures have been stale and predictable for years. In certain ways this is unavoidable. Bond is a super-hero, and the action genre, of which these movies are a sub-set, has a tendency to deteriorate into a string of stunts and action set pieces.

The obvious difference that accounts for the revitalization of the Bond franchise is getting a new actor to play the part. But the crucial changes in the new Bond have nothing to do with acting or directing and everything to do with story structure. Put simply, the writers have moved the character away from god and myth and toward the real and the dramatic.

This shift is apparent right from the start when the film establishes the new Bond's physical bona fides. Which is a fancy way of saying this guy can believably kill someone with his bare hands. This is not the suave but slight Bond who dispenses with his enemies using a few karate chops. This Bond has a long, brutish fight to the death in a grimy bathroom. No fancy technology. Just messy, ugly hand-to-hand combat.

Casino Royale also uses the Batman Begins technique of giving the hero a recognizable weakness and need. This is still James Bond, superhero. But he is clearly troubled by his coldness and his inability to love. And he is not proud of the fact that he treats women as conquests and only sleeps with women who are married (and even gets them killed as a result).

A third structural area where this Bond moves toward the real and the dramatic is the opponent. The villain here is not the evil World Dominator, a mythical figure with no effect on the audience. The opponent here is someone who funds terrorism. His attacks are against real people and their deaths make an emotional difference to the audience.

Perhaps the biggest change here is the most difficult one to see, which is the shift from action to plot. Most Bond films are a sequence of stunts with no plot. There are certainly some big action set pieces in Casino Royale. But they are grounded in a developing plot. Plot is the most complex of the major writing skills and involves, among many other things, using the full 22 steps of every great story (see the Great Screen writing Class). But one of the keys to plot is creating opposition not primarily from strangers but from those closest to the hero. Casino Royale does this much better than most Bond films and it makes a huge difference.

Films like Casino Royale, Superman Returns, Spider-Man, The Incredibles and Batman Begins show that sound story structure techniques don't just work in serious dramas. They work just as well in super-hero myth stories. And if you don't know what these techniques are, you're not in the game.

FOR MORE REVIEWS, please visit www.truby.com
9/10
His Name is Bond. James Bond.
cernan8 June 2008
I remember the public reaction when it was first announced that Daniel Craig would be taking over for Pierce Brosnan as the next James Bond.

The world wasn't ready for a blond Bond, or was it? Never judge a book by its cover. Never judge a film by its actors.

Daniel Craig showed that he is here to stay, and with "Quantum of Solace" coming out later this year, there is much to look forward to from this fine actor. He brought back a certain suaveness in Bond that we haven't seen in a long time. A certain confidence and wit that we last saw when Sean Connery was playing Bond.

"Casino Royale" was Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, and it's probably one of the best as well. Mads Mikkelsen is wickedly vicious as Le Chiffre, and Eva Green is shockingly mysterious and stunning as Vesper. There are unexpected twists, with an ending that shocks, but was not entirely unexpected.

"Quantum of Solace" will pick up an hour after the ending of "Casino Royale" and it should be a wild ride. Daniel Craig has affirmed his spot and proved to the world that he is capable of playing Bond. What has yet to come is sure to be stunning, but entirely reflective of the relatively unknown actor who stepped into possibly the biggest role out there and proved himself.
8/10
Best Bond Since Goldfinger
tony-torn15 November 2006
Got your attention?

I enjoyed the Moore films when I was a kid, and was impressed with the competence of Golden Eye when it came out, but for me, the real Bond movies were the first three, with From Russia With Love the top of the list. Goldfinger created a more fanciful style of Bond film which took over the franchise. Now, I'm not saying that was a bad thing. 007 becoming campy is what kept it alive for so many years. It's just bracing to see this film return to the vibe you get from reading Fleming's actual work. This is what CR has.

I read the book, which was the first ever novel, last summer. the key to the success of the film goes beyond how good Craig is, and how he lifts the game of everybody around him ( look at how interested Dame Judy Dench seems all of a sudden). It's how the filmmakers have expanded the novel into exciting 007 spectacle (with the construction site chase at the top and the collapsing Venice building at the end super effective), without betraying the powerful, and moody tale that Fleming was trying to tell when he introduced the character. all the emotional beats of the book are retained, even in flashy new surroundings. And Eva Green is pretty fab, too.

It's 20 minutes too long, but it's ballsy, the way this film wants wants it all...the action and the drama. they come close to pushing their luck a dozen times, but it all works out pretty damn well. In the end, it takes the same risks that OHMSS took, but in a far more successful manner.

I'm not a real action or spy movie fanatic, so my 8 really is a 10 for the genre.
7/10
Bad poker but Above-average movie
Kieran_Oneill7 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First James Bond film I've ever watched, first thing I noticed I think all these movies are going to be about women cars and action which isn't really my style I would rather have a good story, which the story in my opinion was okay, the poker in this movie is horrible I understand there are rich people that will waste their money on playing poker but does James Bond seriously think that everyone has a tell any good poker player doesn't have a tell and if it appears that they do they are probably Faking It, there's so much more wrong with the poker but I'll stop here, I don't understand why Vesper Lynd killed herself she could have just faked her death she literally gives up the bad guy anyway so what's the point of dying if anything they're just going to kill her boyfriend now, if they don't know that she gave them up that's just bad writing, I have a bad feeling that all these movies are just going to end with him getting the girl and right at the last second hamstring something in to make them not be together, overall it's enjoyable just a little Mindless
9/10
Its dark, gritty and original, And Brilliant
BigBadaBruce19 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The latest James Bond movies, have been laden with technology, bad guys getting more and more ridiculous, plots more and more unbelievable. Lately, I have gone from being a fan of James Bond to being bored of it, too unbelievable, and many fans agreed. The Bourne Identity came out and was instantly loved, it was something you could believe in, no invisible cars or whatever. The producers took that on board and realised they needed a change. So what to do? You start again, get rid of your original Bond, get a younger one in, you lose the gadgets, you go back to basics, get a storyline in, and make it action packed with a dark and gritty style, you make the story about the beginning, and show the evolution of James Bond. What comes out of that? The best Bond movie in over a decade, if not in two.

Now, the movie, i admit, could have been better, but this movie, is about Daniel Craig, and how does he handle the role?? Like a duck to water. His early arrogance and cockiness in his ability to do things, and the fact hes more a thug than a renowned killer. This movie, you gradually see Daniel Craig grow as a person and an agent in standing, his natural intelligence coerces him into using his abilities more wisely, and gradually morphs into the James Bond we love.

This movie sticks closely to the book, there's many scenes lifted from the book, which makes it look good. Le Chiffre as a bad guy is an interesting one, he is more of an intellectual battle, which gives it a different look on things. The main climax is no explosions, no big fights, instead.....it's a game of poker. This is actually better as it shows its more brain over brawn, show the intelligent side to Bond. The love interest Vesper is more of a present day woman, very sure of herself, and doesn't instantly fall for the cold Bond, making their romance more believable. And I just want to give special mention to, THAT torture scene, which Bond comes through admirably, which truly shows the strength of mind and character of Bond.

Brilliant movie, get it now.
9/10
Very different but nevertheless excellent portrayal of Bond
aditya_98826 November 2006
The first thing that hits you when you see this movie, is the fact that it is very different from a Bond movie. But remember, different does not always mean bad. This movie is one hell of a lot better than many Bond movies. Although Daniel Craig does not look like a Bond, his acting and portrayal of the character's qualities more than makes up for that small disadvantage.

It is the first James Bond novel, and hence portrays a James Bond very different from the one we know and are familiar with. This Bond is ruthless, and more aggressive than the one we know. It shows a man who has the skill, but lacks the experience. It also has many parts which we may interpret to be the reason for Bond's Beauvoir in the other movies. An example is his detachment to women, as he puts his life and theirs in danger. This can clearly be seen in the movie.

Eva Green sizzles as Vesper, and plays the role well. Although the movie is male dominant, she does justice to her role. The whole movie has breath-taking action sequences and beautiful locales. The title song by Chris Cornell is nice to listen to. The direction is very nice, and the casino card game sequences are kept to a minimum to avoid boredom. The editing is satisfactory, as is the dialogues and the background score. But the real show-stealer is Daniel Craig. Everything from his emoting to his dialogue delivery is perfect. Very nicely done.

So, finally, all those people who thought Craig would not be a Bond would definitely acknowledge his brilliant performance if not accept him completely. I conclude by saying that Casino Royale is a brilliant movie and is a superb entertainer.
8/10
First Bond - 2006?
nicolaiantonsen3 December 2006
First of all, I thought the film was really entertaining and i loved it.

But, at the end of the movie, I got the impression that: if this were supposed to be the first Bond movie, the makers of Casino Royal did a poor job... (Could be my knowledge that's poor tough;)

In Casino Royale, they're referring to The Cold War, and how they are "glad it's over." How can they do that? Isn't the plot from of some of the earlier Bond movies during the Cold War?

And there has to be some kind of date in one of the earlier Bonds... I just can't believe this is the first time they'd let us know which year their in.

"No Brad, I'm just an ordinary guy, with nothing to loose;)"
7/10
Good but not great, not as good as hyped
DvdWatcher-n-player19 May 2007
I watched this last nite and was reasonably impressed. However I have to say I was expecting more, especially after some glowing reviews by other people. I get the impression now, that they love Bond, and don't want the franchise to die, and therefore over praised the film. It is generally good fun with the beginning being the best part, proceeds quite nicely, with some strange torture scenes ("Talk, bond, damn you!") (took me a minute or two to exactly work out what the torture was?) but seems to have naturally ended about twenty minutes from the real end. For me the last twenty minutes were tacked on to extend the film, and maybe give the bird some meaty acting..trite motivations, and just to let you know Bond is back! Overall good BUT COULD DO BETTER, craig is better than I thought, a "bone" to his female (& male) fans..
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Craig was impressive. Movie was not.
jk90us19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
**SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!**

Well, I saw Bond Begins, I mean, Casino Royale today and while I think Craig did a pretty good job (still don't consider him a Bond though), I wasn't too impressed with the movie itself. For one thing it was WAAAAY too long. At 144 feet-dragging minutes it is the longest running Bond film ever.

Here's the main problem with this film: Like Superman Returns (which was also way too long), Casino Royale had one KICK-ASS opening action scene (the construction site foot chase in CS and the plane rescue in SR), but then it started going downhill from there. Except for the mildly engaging airport terrorist chase and a few funny bits of dialog, the rest of CR went nowhere fast.

And the last twenty minutes were excruciatingly boring, VERY predictable and so anti- climactic I still feel like the film never really ended.

Also, I didn't like the fact that they never really had a MAIN villain, like in other Bond films. One that is truly threatening and is dispatched in some spectacular fashion in the end. It was all just a bunch of little villains and all fairly pathetic. For example, the closest the bad guys came to killing Bond was during a poker tournament when they poison his drink. YAWN. None of them were worth a double-O agents time or effort.

But, one thing I did think was pretty cool was how they saved his ''Bond, James Bond'' line and the Bond theme until the very end when he finally ''became'' the Bond he is supposed to be.

It's just to bad that didn't come an hour earlier in the film.

jk90
9/10
Maybe the best Bond..
wereuat06-112 December 2006
This could in fact be the best Bond ever made. It is stylish, sexy, intelligent,and fast pace. Its got better gadgets then ever and the action just keeps getting better. Daniel Craig could in fact be the best actor since Connery. He portrays bond perfectly with the elegant talk and the sexy remarks and never scared for some good old fashion fights. This story has I think one of the best storyline out of all 21. Every body plays there part perfect rite until the very end. Even the bad guys were good in this one, the way they put it together from calm to action just made this movie ten time better then it might have been. I give this movie a 10 out of 10 for being maybe one of the best Bonds yet
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Yesh mish money penny, yesssh.
Strider_197818 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly ..

I had to spend the first hour or so of this film working out a few things: The time period, the colour schemes, the directors camera work etc.

When M spoke to Bond about events after 9/11 I knew I could relax with the time period, and they were setting this Bond in our time as if none of the rest of them had happened. This partially forgave the annoying but expected sponsorship from the mostly Sony brand mobile/cell phones.

It is important to understand from the get go that this is not the suave and highly styalised Bond most of us have grown up to know and love. This is a gritty and in places hard hitting tale of the boy soldier becoming a 00.

Craig owns this film. Whilst the acting never falters from cast line up, it moves in and around his world with a steely eyed, yet not in human take on the darker side of the British secret service.

Indeed, it is possible to have some mild concern at some of the action sequences. Fighting on scaffolding high in the air is not un realistic; But dropping a good distance and landing without many broken bones is perhaps asking too much of an audience seeking Bond,and not the Bourne identity.

This film however, does turn from the steely eyed SAS type soldier to the first echoes of sophistication on the train with Bonds female counterpart. Here, the motion picture starts to have the elements we know and recognise bleed into it.

I won't give too much of the film away. This is certainly a must see, it's Bonds beginnings. It's certainly a far cry from the other Bond films, but this is not a bad thing.

Baby he's not the best just yet, but getting there fast.

7.5 out of ten
8/10
On The "New" Bond
DD-93112 December 2006
I will make clear at the beginning that this film, while overlong, is IMHO quite a well-made film, well-directed and well-acted, and that I personally find there to be some legitimacy to those who seek to proclaim it the best Bond film ever made. Certainly all those who loudly protested the choice of Daniel Craig in the role of James Bond have now been exposed to the world for their foolishness.

However, I do feel more than a few of those commenting here lack quite a bit of perspective to the evolution of Bond in the popular consciousness over the past half century, which makes some of their pronouncements (most significantly that Craig's performance as Bond is superior to any others') to lack a great deal of credibility.

For starters, it simply cannot be denied that James Bond is one of the great "mythological" creations of that period of history known as the Cold War. Also, that he is a classically British creation of the mid-20th century, and that attempts to translate him into 21st century American terms have always carried with them inherent flaws. In addition, it needs to be restated that when the first Bond films of the '60s arrived, they almost overnight created a whole new genre of film, the "spy film", which had not truly existed beforehand, and which themselves quickly evolved due to the rapid technological advancements of the '60s (most significantly the Space Race) as well as the rapid changes in sexual mores of the time, both of which led to (at the time) unique forays into the fields of science fiction and, well, sex. These should be obvious points, but it is clear that the younger fans on these boards seem to have great difficulty grasping these facts, particularly in terms of properly appreciating the Sean Connery films of the '60s.

My point in all this is that the "newness" of Casino Royale is quite an illusion. This film is actually more faithful to the films of the early '60s than it is groundbreaking in the field of spy films. One need only look at the early Bond films (in particular FROM Russia WITH LOVE) to realize that, 21st century bells and whistles aside, this is pretty much the way CASINO ROYALE would have been filmed if, circumstances permitting, it had been the first Bond movie filmed in 1962. Also, one needs to consider that the accomplishments of the 2006 CASINO ROYALE can be said to be largely made on the backs of the Bond films that came before it -- again, particularly the Connery films of the '60s. I therefore find it rather ignorant to say that this film is more "realistic" than the original Bonds -- a somewhat preposterous statement considering things like the exciting but outrageous foot race in Madagascar that in the end relied more on suspending the laws of probability than any chase or fight in GOLDFINGER.

So to the new fans of Bond, I say, welcome. It is wonderful that you appreciate a Bond film that relies more on character development and honest plot development than any Bond film in the past 35+ years. Now go back and watch the Connery films of the '60s. If you liked this film, you will love the "originals".

And by the way, any of you who think Connery couldn't have handled the level of acting demanded of Craig (which I think he handled quite well) need to see Connery's work in THE HILL. A film he made in 1965, between GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL. That's when you'll realize that, if things had gone differently for the development of the Bond films of the '60s, Connery would have been more than up to the task of creating a "realistic" James Bond.

But then, in the end, there was a reason why they would say, "Sean Connery IS James Bond".
7/10
Greener, leaner and meaner Bond
gus12097023 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We're living in a post-postmodern age: Post-totalitarian, post-911, post-Austin Powers...What to do with a franchise which had developed into an exercise of biennial money-printing and which engendered huge affection but also increasing comic irony with the movie-going public. The danger signs were there: 2003 Die Another Day took a bluf, self-parodying approach to the puns, gadgets and doomsday weapons lampooned by Mike Myers and got away with it due to slickness, spend, star turns from the likes of Halle Berry and the fading testosterone charms of Pierce Brosnan. But it felt like a last hoorah, and self parody can bring short term laughs in return for long term damage.

What they did was go back to basics. Take a new Bond back to the start of the story, strip away a large amount of the character's cartoon aspect, strip out the saggy excesses of the plots, characters and set-pieces and big up the rawer, less family-friendly aspects of international espionage.

Daniel Craig's Bond is a cruel man, with cruel eyes and he does nasty things to people on screen. This is not a character to engender familiar affection, but respect. As befits going back to the beginning of the story there is unrealised ambition, but also elements of self-doubt.

The script also allows him to make some big mistakes at several key points, some are based on judgement and experience, others plain naivety. But Bond bounces back here as he's always done, but more often using his fists and his malicious streak rather than some outrageous invention designed to get him out of trouble.

This is a Bond much more of an outsider, still inwardly socially awkward despite the developing veneer - 'there are dinner suits and dinner suits' observes Vesper Lynd sardonically, prodding that sense of residual inferiority absent from all this character's previous incarnations.

All of this is good. Much more of the iron fist than Brosnan's velvet glove, or worse, Dalton's limp civil-service handshake. It chimes in with a new sense of purpose and necessity that accompanies the concept of 'secret service' which has arisen since the growth in global terrorism. Since the return of Bond in the post-communist 1990s, the film's script had previously poked fun at Bond as being a 'relic' of the cold war, a silly establishment anachronism to be indulged. Suicide bombs, clandestine weapons programs and assassinations have turned on its head this view of spies and spying.

As terrorism is the underlying thread of threat in the film it is at once topical and believable. But in that there's a problem, at least from its appreciation on the pure level of popcorn entertainment. Bond villains have really lost their ambition - where once they planned to hold the world to ransom or even start a new Master Race in space, the height of their ambition is to fleece a few poker players in a tacky Yugoslavian resort hotel.

'If you fail, our government will have knowingly financed terrorism', chimes Vesper. Not exactly the fate of humanity hanging in the balance, and the stakes of the game are $150m. About the price of an NHS hospital, and the velodrome for the upcoming Olympics.

The set-pieces have been reigned in too. The opening free-running sequence is inventive and impressive, and the airport runway scene is fun. Unintentional satire too, given the obvious allusion to the prototype and the Airbus A380. Blowing up their new plane could lead the company to bankruptcy! Yes, and delays due to wiring problems can do the same...

After that the film distinctly loses pace which only accentuates its length. There was a palpable sense about 15 minutes from the end that the audience had had enough. It was a bold move to set such a long sequence of the film at a poker table, and it is relevant to the title, but there was just a few too many hands played. And at the end, after all the chips have been played I was expecting an underwater lair to emerge from the Adriatic, full of boiler-suited goons. But no, it was just a poker competition and, well done James, you won.

The ending gives a strong sense of linkage into a future episode, where the organisation for which Le Chiffre is working will reveal itself in more detail. Maybe there's a lair somewhere after all.
10/10
A new age, a new Bond
bgood2629 December 2006
Daniel Craig may be blond, but he is the Bond that Ian Fleming wrote for. He is cold, tough, egotistical, and brutal. From the opening sequence, filmed in black-and-white, shows Bond's first two kills: drowning one after a fistfight in the men's room, shooting the other after emptying his pistol. He does so without mercy, emotion, and smart-ass one-liners.

Craig is the Bond who disregards M's direct orders, breaks into her home, and steals her MI6 passcodes. He shoots up an African embassy to capture a single bomb-maker. He turns down certain sex with a gorgeous Italian model for work. He uses his fists, his gun, and his wits to beat his enemies. No Bond-like gadgets and toys, as Q doesn't even appear, a first since "Dr. No." Even the opening credits show a tougher Bond. Gone are the tasteful silhouettes of nude women, replaced with an image of Bond punching and shooting animated baddies, who bleed clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades.

"Casino Royale" terrific Bond movie - perhaps not the best one, bit easily the best since "Live and Let Die" (1973), and Daniel Craig instantly replaces Pierce Brosnan as the #2 Bond.
10/10
So much to say...
stanio_w27 November 2008
This is not your typical Bond film. I'm not a fan of the series, but I've watched enough to say that even though this movie lacks everything we're used to see in Bond's films, it's still the best of them all. Craig just... fits. If he had to play a Pierce Brosnan Bond, this movie would've been screwed - i'm pretty sure he couldn't live up to it, but this Bond - it's like it was written for him, this coldblooded, arrogant murderer. And we have something I never expected in a Bond film - it's realistic. I mean not REALISTIC realistic, but at least with a little imagination, you could believe this could actually happen. Something most of the other movies lacked... Story is a bit hard to follow. I can't think of anything else in this movie that's bad. Although a little car chase would've been nice... Bah, don't you mind this cranky teenager - the movie is great, don't miss it!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unexpected , hard-to-believe success
yildirimbaris200028 November 2006
Well , even though I don't know about filming and shooting I think I finally enjoyed a Bond since a long time. As a Bond fan, Sean Connery has always been my best and most of the Bond fans have the same idea. But I always looked for someone who can act Bond maybe not like Connery but as charming as him. Daniel Craig made an unexpected screening and made me really enjoy a movie. First time Bond doesn't have invisible car (instead he has considerable, high-tech Aston Martin) he doesn't jump from the hills and walk up without scratch instead they torture him, and finally for the first time he is in love, and we can understand why he wont be "emotionally detached" to anyone from now on. I think Casino Royale is a success. Way to go Daniel Craig...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A New Bond...
Mike-6897 October 2011
In this film the arrival of Daniel Craig as James Bond signals not only a change of actor in the lead role but also a complete reinvention of the Bond franchise. Gone is the jokey approach; there's no Miss Moneypenny or Q, no gadgets, no long car chases and no master criminal about to take over the world from a secret hideaway full of countless minions to be summarily despatched by our hero in the final 20 minutes. And for this reinvention the producers have, appropriately enough, adapted the very first Bond novel by Ian Fleming so this really is a new beginning for 007 in every respect. Now, I have to admit that I haven't taken a great deal of interest in the Bond films over the years – after the early Sean Connery ones they became little more than glossy spectacle, all style and minimal content. With this film being heralded as a new approach I was keen to see what they'd do.

I'm not sure the plot was any more important than the earlier glossy movies – though it's a complicated affair, centred around Bond playing a long, high-stakes poker game with, amongst others, Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen), a banker to terrorist groups throughout the world who is himself at risk from his customers. What I found more interesting was the redefining of Bond himself as a ruthless but fallible hero. This Bond bleeds when he's beaten up and screams when he's stripped and tortured. Craig plays the role as a combination of toughness and vulnerability and we have a sense of a complex psychology working beneath the brutal exterior. The pace is fast-moving and the action gripping throughout, although I felt a couple of the set pieces went on just a little too long. But the final shoot-out in a building in Venice undergoing renovation made for an exciting climax. The acting is polished without being remarkable, and Eva Green performs well as Bond's lover Vesper, but it's Daniel Craig's film and he carries the mantle well. James Bond has now truly arrived in the twenty-first century.
9/10
Fantastic!!!
dremer_alive3 December 2006
This movie was entertaining, intriguing, well written, and excellently performed by the many sharp actors cast for their roles. It took you through emotions of Awe, Bewilderment, Excitement, Romance, Vengeance, Suspense, Lust, Psychosis, Pain, and Hate. It was a movie worth your $10 at the Box office, and well worth watching again and again. Don't miss one of the Greatest Bond movies ever made. You'll Enjoy Daniel Craig's performance as a well equipped Bond, able to handle Anything--from car chases, to foot chases, from shoot-outs, to charming the Ladies. He proved to be worthy to carry 007 into this next generation of movie goers lining up to see a Bond able to keep up with the likes of Matt Damon in the Bourne Series, Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible 3, and so on. Though Pierce Brosnan was an excellent, sophisticated Bond, Daniel Craig brings sophistication, class, and a rogue, edgy and very physical side to what the Bond character has been missing. A reboot of the Bond Series is an exact commentary to what Casino Royale has done.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Amazing!!!
vittoriocorleone17 November 2006
In short this film is Amazing! It re-defines and re-invents Bond in the way that Ian Fleming intend, the more darker sinister world of 007 is explored giving light as to how Bond obtained his 007 status. Im pretty sure if Ian Fleming were alive to see this adaptation of his original classic he would be delighted in the way they have portrayed it on the silver screen! The casting of Casino Royale is superb, although everyone was unsure about the casting of Daniel Craig, including myself, he has turned out to be possibly the greatest actor to play Bond!!! i know sounds crazy compared legends in the role such as Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan, i was sure i would not be able to take Craig seriously however the guy is amazing and portrays Bond like no other! If your a Bond fan or not this Film has something for you, to describe it in one word would be Amazing, Possibly the greatest Bond film of all time!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the best
j_j_de_Haas11 December 2006
Having just seen the 21st Bond film, I must say I am absolutely flabbergasted. I was sceptical beforehand, as the thing was made by much of the folks responsible for 2002's 2-hour long commercial that was Die Another Day. However, the surviving Broccoli's seemed to have learned their lesson and disposed of the Schwarzeneggeresque, product-placement motivated disaster that was the Brosnan era.

Whereas Brosnan really was no more than a glorified clotheshorse, Daniel Craig brings some much needed gusto to the role, oozing the unflappable coolness that brought him such acclaim in Layer Cake. We are treated to some great one-liners ('Everybody is going to know you died scratching my balls!', Bond laughs defiantly during a gruesome torture scene).

Eva Green is equally excellent, even considering that hers is a fantastically written character (and, of course, that Halle Berry's laughable DAD performance wasn't a hard act to follow). Judy Dench finally gets some good lines and the Token Black Ally is a surprisingly interesting Felix Leiter rather than a one-dimensional MI5 sidekick. Only the Villain, Le Chiffre, is just a little too consciously sinister, almost to the point of caricature and not really a match for the likes of Goldfinger or Scaramanga. This is compensated, though, by some tremendously entertaining fight-and-chase scenes, culminating in quite possibly the most spectacular car crash ever caught on camera. The photography is beautiful and the dialogue highly memorable, all factors in this being one of the best Bonds since Connery times.
8/10
"Royale" Without Cheese
jmoney-218 November 2006
When Daniel Craig was first cast as James Bond, I was one of many who expressed my doubts. He's not tall, not handsome -- at first glance, he's not -- as the character is often described -- "the man every woman wants and every man wants to be."

But a still photo of the guy doesn't tell you everything. Once you see him in action on the screen, it all totally works. In fact, it works so well, when the movie's over, you couldn't imagine anyone else playing the part.

That says a lot, considering Craig is the sixth actor to play the role. But it says more about the script (by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, with dialog help from Oscar-winner Paul Haggis) which allows Craig to make the character his own. The writers start from scratch, introducing Bond as a young agent just beginning his career. In a black and white prologue, we get to see his first kill, and it's not pretty. The brutal violence sets the tone -- there'll be no parachuting off cliffs in this one. But it also allows a fresh interpretation of Bond.

Rugged and muscular, this 007 is no pretty boy. What Craig does have is charisma and intensity. He's also able to do what no what no previous actor has been able to do: make the character plausible. Don't get me wrong -- I loved Pierce Brosnan in the role. But he was playing a different character -- he was the Bond who could singlehandedly take out a small army and save the world, all without wrinkling his expensive tailored suit. But that's not the guy we see in Casino Royale. Brosnan or Roger Moore couldn't have played this Bond. Only a young Sean Connery could have come close. Of course, Craig has the advantage of a screenplay that for the first time, gives Bond a true character arc and real emotions.

The rest of the cast is great, too. Eva Green is gorgeous as treasury agent, Vesper Lynd -- the most complex, three-dimensional Bond girl ever. She has real chemistry with Craig, and their romance is the best real love story the series has ever achieved. Dame Judi Dench (the only actor returning from the previous films) gives her best performance yet as "M". This time, she's more of a mother to Bond -- guiding him and helping to shape him into the man he becomes. Jeffrey Wright, though under-used, is also great as Bond's CIA counterpart, Felix Leiter.

The storyline is also more realistic. Ironically, Casino Royale -- the shortest of Bond novels (less than 200 pages) -- has become the longest Bond movie (2 hrs. 20 mins.). It begins with what amounts to a mini-Bond movie about 007 foiling a terrorist plot to blow up a plane in Miami. It then segues to the plot of the novel, which makes up the bulk of the movie's second act. Here, the writers are very faithful to Ian Fleming's original work, albeit with some extra fight scenes and car chases thrown in. The book is essentially a simple story about a card game. Bond is sent to the casino to make sure the bad guy loses all of his money. The game is updated from Baccarat to Texas Hold 'Em. At first, I thought that change was sacrilege, but it's absolutely the right choice, since it allows the audience to more easily follow what's going on. The psychological nature of Hold 'Em also gives the writers and actors more fun stuff to work with.

In short, Casino Royale is a terrific rebirth for the Bond series. I look forward to Craig's next mission.
1/10
This is Jason Bourne. Not 007
torfly13 November 2021
The modern lame Bond lacks style. Class. Arrogance. No cool gadgets. No funny smartass comments. Just another action movie.

The plot is acceptable but the james bond effect is gone. The start of the end of the franchise.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Superb
Derek99929 November 2006
Having seen Layer Cake a few years back I had high hopes that Daniel Craig could do very well as Bond - and I wasn't disappointed.

The movie isn't exactly dark, but does move nicely away from the cheesefest that was taking over the later Brosnan flicks. (Sorry John Cleese, the Black Knight does indeed always triumph, but Q was a tad painful.) Craig, and the supporting cast, do a fantastic job in Casino Royale at not only making this one of the better Bond films, but one of the better films of the year in its own right.

A few negatives, no naked silhouettes in the title music. Just seemed wrong without them somehow, although the replacement is good. And there is a "commentary" from one character over a poker scene that did make me think I was watching a game of snooker.

But that's it. Everything else oozed cool. Sharp direction, great chases and a decent script.

Top film.
8/10
Not a Family-Friendly Bond
DesbUK18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
CASINO ROYALE is everywhere in the UK at the moment, from Lottery Scratchcards to BBC4 to it's premiere on the front page of up and downmarket newspapers. And every critic appears to be raving about the film. CASINO ROYALE - which is the first Bond film in 4 years - pulls off the trick of appealing both to fans of the films, Ian Fleming purists and non-Bond audiences.

But this isn't so much the return of James Bond but his relaunch and reinvention. Though the director, writers and production team are all veterans of the series, CASINO ROYALE doesn't really remind you of the previous 20 films. The opening pre-credits adventure is abandoned in favour of a brief prologue in Prague showing Bond confronting (and killing) an MI6 traitor, cross-cut with him beating up and killing another anonymous villain in a bathroom. There's no real reason for it all to be shot in black and white, is there?

So, instead of a pre-credits adventure we get a post-credits chase in Madagasscar – Bond pursuing a free-jumping bomb-maker on foot, up cranes and ending with a shoot out in an embassy. It's as dangerous looking as it is thrilling to watch. And, in general, the action sequences are breathtaking edge of the seat stuff. This isn't a family friendly Bond though – it's the only film in which 007 almost dies (he has a cardiac arrest after being poisoned during the poker game) and the torture sequence of a naked Bond being beat on the testicles with a knotted rope rules the movie out getting any Christmas afternoon/Bank Holiday Monday showings on ITV.

Other liberties are taken – no Q or Miss Moneypenny and no Bond theme until the closing credits. This is Bond's first mission. The first half of the movie is the invention of the writers, with Bond moving from Africa to London to the Bahamas and Miami, chasing terrorists. The second half of the movie reverts to Ian Fleming's 1953 novel: paired with treasury agent Vesper Lynd, Bond must ruin the terrorist financier Le Chiffe over the poker table at an Eastern European casino.

Daniel Craig is agile and physical in the role of the novice 00 agent – he gets cut, scarred and bleeds. It's a tribute to his impressive performance that I couldn't imagine Pierce Brosnan in the role. Rather cleverly, he doesn't get to deliver the line "The name's Bond, James Bond" (which was Connery, Lazenby and Dalton's first line in their debut Bond films) until the very end of the film. Cue Monty Norman's classic theme and the hope we don't have to wait another 4 years for Bond 22.
7/10
Shaken and Extremely Well Stirred
ameh119 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie begins in classic form, in black and white, by classic I mean more of the Orson Welles kind, where a man isolated from the rest of the world is forced to confront his destiny, darkly and tragically, there is a sense of fatalism and Bond knows it.

Once sealed, he must now deliver, as M reminds him coldly throughout the movie. The movie is brutal and honest, it is the story of the maturation of a man, from a human being into a cold blooded killer, gone are the the bohemian and debonair qualities of James Bond we have come to identify, replaced with an almost noble, serious and Spartan nature. He still seeks the thrills, but now we see a determination, a seriousness, an obsession with the job. He must purge from his soul any remnants of compassion, human love, vulnerability and the idea of pain and suffering, if he wants to become what he must become.

In the processes of this development, he finds in Vesper Lynd a woman like him, who seems strong on the outside but soft, mysterious and vulnerable inside. He is fascinated and is drawn to her beauty and charm, against his will, this is the test M was waiting for, coldly. He displays all the weaknesses of a man in love, at his own cost and peril, the relationship is doomed from the beginning, tragic and flawed, like Bond himself.

I found the first half of the movie fascinating, well executed, more in the nature of an Alistair McLain novel, where our hero, blue in color, ruthless and not perfect, who does sometimes get beaten and bloodied, and in the criminal elements, who live in the shadows, complex and mysterious. The action and dialogue is slow and deliberate. I was moved and saddened by the developments of the relationship between Bond and Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green, there is a wonderful chemistry between the two of them, she is beautiful and enchanting, fragile but brave, even though her accent seems a little over the top. But it is Daniel Craig who dominates , he is the perfect instrument or tool, molded and hammered to perfection in this process of transformation.

He has a physical presence that dominates and overpowers the screen, his eyes and face are extremely expressive, they can display the coldness and hardness of a killer, but at the same time express love, tenderness, compassion, anger and suffering with equal ease, especially with those blue eyes. He is the Sex Symbol and not the women, with an old fashioned air about him. The somewhat perfect man, aggressive and vulnerable at the same time (please excuse, for I am not sure that I am able to express my thoughts regarding this subject with any understanding), strong, both physically and mentally, but gentle and protective, unafraid to express his feeling, generous and willing to sacrifice for love. Qualities that most women are forever seeking in their other half, but rarely find, an eternal and futile quest, except of course in fantasy and at a theater near you.

As the relationship between, Vesper Lynd and Bond develops and the focus shifts, the main plot and the action seem forgotten, making it difficult to understand and follow the love story at the same time. One is left confused by it all ( Or it could just be my imagination working over time again). Given the time constraints it is understandable, but if a movie starts of this good, the story must be allowed to be completed properly and to its fullest, no matter how long it takes, after all Gone With Wind was long and people still loved it. Maybe, we are too consumed by the idea of instant gratification and the idea of a 2 hour time constraint may be ingrained in our systems. I am sure in the East they would loved it even more if it had been long, since it is common for movies to run 3 hours and more.

In the end one hopes that in the next movie, if Daniel Craig comes back to play Bond, they will not forget to put him through the similar conflicts and struggles, the cold hearted killer and the flawed lover of beautiful women, so important to Bond's personality. Further, in a disturbing sort of way, there is not much that separates arch villain La Criffe, cold and lifeless, and James Bond Licensed to Kill, one works to save the world, the other to destroy it, but both use deception and extreme violence to achieve their ends, both have beautiful women whom they seem to care for. So if both were to swap jobs, the objectives would change but the means by which they are achieved would remain the same. Finally it is interesting to note that in the box office race, people seem to prefer the Animated Happy Feet to Casino Royale.
9/10
Exciting
phillipstephenso21 January 2007
The first thing to be admired about this new version of Casino Royale is the title sequence, which includes beautiful animation combined with a new arrangement of James Bond songs. A montage of card symbols appears and disappears like a fractal. The credits at the end include some nice songs, also.

The new James Bond is Daniel Craig. The main prerequisite of any James Bond should be that he doesn't mind taking off his shirt to share his nice body. Daniel Craig does his duty well in this regard and also handles the other demands of the role with style, grace and plenty of costume changes.

The plot does not disappoint, either. There is plenty of fast-paced action with twists. The setting ranges from London to the Bahamas to Montenegro to Venice, with excellent cinematography.

There are other things to admire in this creative effort, besides the essential elements of the cast, plot, and cinematography. It is time for a new generation of James Bond actors, and Daniel Craig does not disappoint. A fresh view of a classic film is hard to bring off. I particularly admired the brilliantly executed scene in which Daniel Craig is poisoned by something slipped into his drink and the ensuing chaos involving a defibrillator. The pacing was so realistic that I gasped and put my hand over my own heart.
10/10
Wonderful
dominodancing16 November 2006
Let's start off by saying this - Daniel Craig IS James Bond. He is totally different to any of the previous actors (with the possible exception of Timothy Dalton in 'Licence To Kill') to play this role. He is just awesome as a newly qualified 007 on his first mission. He really looks the part and excels playing a gadget-less (no Q in this film) Bond who survives on his wits alone. The film is also noteworthy for two great fight scenes (in a bathroom and stairwell) which are just brutal.

Director Martin Campbell deserves credit for injecting new energy into the franchise - much as he did in 'Goldeneye'.

The only two gripes are the title track (just dreadful - down there with Bono and The Edge's effort for 'Goldeneye') and the lack of a traditional gun-barrel sequence. But minor gripes they are - 'Casino Royale' is wonderful. The third best Bond film after 'Goldfinger' and 'Licence To Kill'.
9/10
Big, Bad, Beefy Bond
richard-136124 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loved this film. Brilliant opener with tense, believable (by modern standards) action sequences. Nice touch when Bond simply runs and smashes through the plaster wall rather than taking the nimble approach. Authentic feel to the fights right down to the cuts and scars on his knuckles when he rejoins the card game. I won't give anything away but go see this film. It's got all the right moves, action, drama, humour and most important for the future of the franchise, character development. Bond is shown as being very human and not just some slick quipping clothes horse (who can forget the execrable scene when Brosnan used the canopy of the jet/car thing and the parachute to sky/surf the tidal wave! Awful, awful, awful).
7/10
This isn't your grandfathers 007
mick987g26 March 2007
This new version of Casino Royale is not your grandfathers James Bond Daniel Craig plays the latest version of James Bond.

It has a harsher edge to it. More grit then the previous Bonds. More along the lines of the Timothy Dalton movies.

He is shot, knifed, poisoned, stripped, and tortured And on top of all, that he falls in love and then is betrayed by a woman but that is nothing new for Mr. Bond.

It was cool to see they have sort of updated the characters to the 21 century. They kept the great actress Dame Judith Dench as M. Felix Leiter is now a black guy.

So yes, I hope they make a couple of more with Mr. Craig. But we will see
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Steve McQueen does Jackie Chan does James Bond
bill-174929 November 2006
This is a Steve McQueen look alike playing Jackie Chan who is playing James Bond. The more sullen and less suave Bond is in the class of the failed attempt with George Lazenby.

No doubt this is an action flick. But not really a Bond film as there are no exciting gadgets, only one beautiful woman, no clever humor and we have James Bond getting cut, shot, beaten whereas in a real bond fantasy our hero always escapes with hardly a scratch.

And last, an unbelievable Felix Lighter and no Q. The finish with the collapsing and drowning building was more like a video game than a quality film production.

This will go down in Bond lore as a spoiled opportunity just as did the first Woody Allen and David Niven spoof in 1977. Such a shame as this was one of the only remaining original Ian Fleming novels left to be done by the real Bond.
8/10
Just amazing
ranees120 November 2006
I am a big Bond fan and i was disappointed to hear that Pierce Brosnan's not Bond anymore. But i still bought tickets ( actually i had to reserve). But since the movie started , i had no intention to look in watch . Movie is just fast paced action thriller . No gadgets. Just back to basic. Daniel Craig does a great job,even though he doesn't have Brosnan's charm. Eva green and Judy dench does a great job as well. We see a different face to M. The title and the stunts in the beginning are good. AT the end when you leave the cinema you wont even feel like you have watches a Bond movie( Kind of weird ) but a romantic/action thriller
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Bond is back, and is better than he has been in a long... long time
brodie_kashmir31 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is gritty, visceral, bloody, violent throwback to the stripped down James Bond flicks of the 60's, a great diversion from the CG and gadget heavy films of the 90's and 2000's.

Casino Royale is about the start of James Bond's (Daniel Craig) career. From the time he gets promoted to a 00 agent (license to kill) and his first major assignment, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who helps finance various terrorist organizations around the world. His investigation takes him to Madagascar, the Bahamas and finally to Italy to compete against Le Chiffre in a high stakes ($10 million buy in) poker game in order to take down Le Chiffre's business, with the help of fellow M16 agent Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), British Treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright).

The writers (Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis) and director (veteran Bond director Martin Campbell) had this idea that in order to compete for super-spy supremacy in the modern world of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer, who have their brains, their brawn, and little else to go on, a CG flick with more futuristic gadgets than Batman wouldn't fly, and opted for a stripped down, no-nonsense film. Early on in the film, the free-style walking/movement technique known as Parkour is heavily used in a very long but very intense chase scene between Bond and an African bomb maker (who is played by one of the creators of Parkour). The most high tech gadget Bond is given throughout the whole film is the portable defibrillator in his glove compartment.

Obviously, when discussing a new Bond flick that features a new actor portraying the world's most famous spy, discussion of his performance is a top priority. Everyone wants to know how he'll do. And there has been no greater scrutiny of a casting decision than that of Craig for Bond. Craig (Layer Cake, Munich) comes in at a very close second to Sean Connery for best Bond. He's got the swagger. The charismatic, cocky, "I'm the baddest mother" in the room swagger. But since he's playing a younger, less experienced Bond, he also has an intensity and naivety to his performance that makes it much more than just another Bond, it propels him to a high plane. You actually take note of Craig's talent for acting, not just his talent for portraying Bond.

Craig's supporting cast is just wonderful. The beautiful and talented French actress Green (The Dreamers, Kingdom of Heaven) is a mesmerizing Bond girl. Mikkelsen is one of the best villains we've seen since Christopher Walken in A View to a Kill. Wright, Giannini and Dame Judi Dench round out the stellar cast that help Craig slip into Bond's tuxedo with ease.

But however impressive this film may have been, it was still a rookie film. It felt like a rookie film. Craig played Bond to the best of his abilities at the time, but he's still trying to gather his full bearings. His second film will be simply amazing. He'll be more comfortable with the character. And the film just didn't feel the same without the beloved Q branch.

I would have accepted this film as just a straight spy film. It didn't need the James Bond brand. And there are times when it doesn't feel like a Bond film. Because when you think of Bond, you think beautiful women, fantastical gadgets, and vodka martinis, shaken not stirred. Giving Bond depth, emotion and multiple layers sends the franchise in a whole new direction. Only time will tell if that works for the cocky ladies man.
7/10
Interesting Concept
m_ruch-121 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My comment may spoil this movie for some, who mistakenly believe that this is a continuation of Pierce Brosnan's 007, as portrayed by a new actor. Don't think so, folks. Read on, if you want to learn the "truth" behind this new Bond adventure.

This film is not a prequel to the 007 movies of the past, it is a total reinvention of 007. The plot of this movie assumes that Daniel Craig is the first and only person to ever portray Bond on film. The time, therefore, is post 9/11, and current day. Judi Dench, as "M" is in charge because there has never been any one else in charge. Q Branch has not yet been established,thus Bond cannot receive any of his "trademark" gadgets. How could he get gadgets if the gadget branch has not been established yet? James Bond is not the polished 007 that we have become familiar with from the portrayals of other actors through the past 40 years. This film starts from scratch! Ground zero! Day one! There never was a Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or even Pierce Brosnan.

This is the story of how James Bond became 007, in 2006, as seen through the eyes and actions of Daniel Craig. If you go into this movie basing your perceptions of 007 on the actors who have played him in the past, and compare those portrayals to the "new guy", then you are missing the entire point of the film! I don't want to give anything away, but if you listen carefully to the music, you will discover, by the end of the film, that each time Bond goes into action, you hear a little more of the familiar "James Bond" theme, intertwined into the music that is accompanying Bond's action scenes. At the end of the movie, when the theme is fully realized, you look at your buddy sitting next to you and it suddenly becomes clear to you. You've just watched the man, known as James Bond, make the change from a regular field agent, to a double-0 agent! This transformation into the suave sophisticated agent doesn't happen overnight. On the screen it takes more than 2 hours! You don't just become a double-0 overnight, with offhand quips, gadgets galore, and a favorite beverage. It takes time to develop all the quirks and idiosyncrasies of the character that other actors have portrayed in his fully developed form. Never before have we seen this character develop like he does in this film.

Go back and see the movie again, and forget everything you ever knew about 007. I'm certain that you'll come away with a new perspective not only of Daniel Craig, but of the overall film. It was a bold move on the part of the producers, but I salute them for not doing what they've done before. This is NOT a continuation of Pierce Brosnan's James Bond as played by a different actor. This is James Bond! And he becomes 007 right before your eyes!
7/10
Gambling With The Blonde Bond
cultjones28 November 2006
Martin Campbell returns to the realm of James Bond 11 years after his first dip in the Fleming franchise with Golden Eye and the previous MI6 super agent, Pierce Brosnan. Coincidently Golden Eye was Brosnan's first stab at portraying Bond and fittingly, Campbell returns to usher in the newest 007 in Daniel Craig.

Craig's selection to play the role was controversial to say the least however from the start he makes the part his own. Choosing not to follow the lead of previous agents, Craig portrays Bond as more gritty and edgy. Even though Craig's Bond lacks the charm and charisma of his predecessors, he does brings his own brand of rugged cool. Probably not the sharpest of Bond's in the saga but Craig is certainly the one with most brawn and isn't afraid to use it which the audience discovers almost immediately in the exhilarating chase sequence involving Bond alongside the jaw dropping athleticism of Sebastien Foucan who plays Mollaka.

Campbell keeps the successful Bond formula alive with great stunts, chase scenes and raw power however the villain depicted by Mads Mikkelsen doesn't impress and seems hardly formidable while fan favourite 'Q' and his gadgets are sorely missed. Nonetheless, Casino Royale is an entertaining ride and was worth the wait.

Craig does lack in certain aspects when being compared to those that once donned the mantel of James Bond, and although he isn't the most verbose of Bond's, Craig more than makes up for it with his original portrayal and in turn, assuring fans that the future of Fleming's brainchild is in safe hands.
6/10
Bravo Daniel Craig
spokar25 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had my doubts when it was announced that Daniel Craig would be the new James Bond. At that time I had wished Clive Owen or even Hugh Jackman to play 007... but after watching Casino Royale... I must admit .. I loved Daniel Craig as 007 ! The best one yet since Connery ! **Sorry Brosnan** Can't wait to see Craig in Bond 22. Bond 22 would be a sort of follow on to Casino Royale, stating that it would be part 2 of a 2-part story and thus expecting there to be a small a gap as possible between the release of the 2 films. I hope his character would be brute and merciless... of course looking devilishly handsome in a suit.. Just like we women like it ! Bravo Daniel Craig. ... you've earned our respect as 007 !!!!
10/10
Amazing Reinvention of the Bond Series
chrisdl_heath23 November 2006
I must admit that when I heard that Daniel Craig had been chosen to succeed Piers Brosnan as James Bond in the autumn of 2005 I was not a little surprised and dismayed; he seemed so unlikely. He had many detractors, did not appear to be the obvious candidate and seemed to get off to an inauspicious start (e.g. wearing a life jacket to the PR launch was a serious gaff, his mum spilled the beans to the press took the wind out of everyones' sales, his tooth got knocked out in a fight sequence etc...)That aside, he had a reputation as fine actor specialising in in gritty character roles and often the anti-hero.

Let me tell you now: he was an inspired choice. His casting really puts his immediate predecessors in the shade. Daniel Craig could play this character in real life. He's not the tallest man to play Bond nor is he the best looking, but he's tremendously tough, he moves well and he knows how to deliver the lines.

About the film itself: it's like no other Bond movie and you are best off forgetting all the others; it's almost impossible to compare to anything else. Its a complete reinvention. If I had to compare Craigs interpretation, it would be like Connery's.

The script is witty and intelligent, the photography is fantastic and the direction is very original; it's almost a new genre in itself.

I enjoyed every minute of it and although its difficult keeping up with plot sometimes, it doesn't really matter and you are always kept guessing and on the end of your seat. I thoroughly enjoyed - Its a must see movie.
7/10
Revisionist Bond
fivecentscribe18 June 2019
Casino Royale is partly uneven and stoic in its character development but it's a nice revision of Bond's story and a realistic reboot of the character. It's the Batman Begins of the Bond franchise.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The greatest James Bond film of all time
garrettthebeast717 June 2010
I've always been a fan of the 007 movies but all I had to say after I saw Casino Royale was...actually I was speechless. Daniel Craig makes the best Bond and gives what maybe one of the best performances of his career. I'm very happy that they have rebooted the entire 007 franchise and they've started it off nicely. Basically the story is as simple as any other Bond film:James must stop a terrorist banker he suspects throughout a poker game. The acting is done very well, the action sequences are stunted nicely, and the chemistry between Bond and Vesper is very romantic. Overall, my title says it all but just keep in mind that this is my opinion about the latest Bond movie:That it is quite possibly the best 007 movie ever.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The "Batman Begins" Of The Bond Franchise
jordansepticeye11 November 2016
This movie and Batman Begins are very similar for their franchises,after a more cartoony film(Batman and Robin and Die Another Day),the producers decided the way to fix the franchise was to start from scratch all over again and take a darker,grittier approach.That was a great idea for this franchise,as we got one of the best entries with this movie.I don't have any major issues,but I guess the villain could've been in it a bit longer.Now,the good,Daniel Craig,he is charming and intimidating at the same time,like a more cold hearted Sean Connery.The story,it is interesting,great,and compelling.The action,it is fantastic and when people get hurt,you feel it.I loved the suspense in some scenes.The cinematography is gorgeous,and the score is great.I really like the fact that Bond isn't truly the typical "Bond" we've come to know,you get to see him evolve throughout the film.The villain and Bond girl are also awesome,they feel real and their actions seem very human.The best part of this movie though,the realism,it makes everything more interesting and makes you care more about the characters.Casino Royale is an amazing entry in the James Bond franchise,and the perfect way to modernize the iconic character.
10/10
Daniel Craig and Casino Royale
tonib197019 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WOW, 3 minutes into the film and I was hooked and in love. The best Bond ever. My husband is so jealous as I have been swooning over Daniel Craig now for 2 days. What can I say, a superb film, with a much needed new kind of Bond. He is so tough fit and gorgeous. I've never been to see a Bind film before, never had the need to go. All that changed when I saw a picture of Daniel coming out of the water, bye bye bond girls in bikinis, time for us women to get a thrill and Daniel in his speedos, Oh my god. anyway there's a love story there too. I recommend this to anyone. A truly classic film action film. Craig you are the best Bond ever....
10/10
Good to see you again, now who are you?
PeterWorthers18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I have been a lifelong Bond follower, and as a kid growing up James Bond was always put into the category of Superhero, like Batman and Superman. He never got hurt, his hair always stayed fixed, he always did the right thing and ALWAYS got the girl. It's nice to see some things have changed and for the better. I went into 'Casino Royale' expecting to hate the film (I am an avid movie geek, following the progress of the film online and dissecting the trailer frame by frame) because lets face it, noting could be better than sitting in the theater watching 'Goldeneye' as Pierce Brosnan brought back the stale Bond Franchise back to life.

It was cool to like James Bond again. But sadly after 'Die Another Day' James Bond became the running joke of the movies themselves (A sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the Cold War) Plus, I grew up with Roger Moore and then being drawn back into the franchise with Brosnan. How could a blonde, blue eyed guy walk into the role and win me back? Impossible.

UNTIL; 'Casino Royale'. This movie does what Batman Begins did for the dark night; it shows that Bond is not some superhero (goodbye childhood dreams) but a man who is not perfect but is driven by the need to do what he feels is best.

THIS James Bond makes mistakes, he gets beat up, he falls off things, he gets caught by the cops, he get scared...in other words; he becomes a real person that we in today's world can relate to. He comes off this pedestal he has stayed on for years and shows us that he is indeed a man. We see Bond actually scared for his life in one scene, we see him screw up in the pursuit of justice in the beginning scene, we see his faults; but in turn are reminded why he was a 'superhero' to begin with.

It was a breath of fresh air to see the true to book Bond, and even better to see him on the screen where it belonged. But our old friend brought some old friends back with him; the new re-vamped gun barrel intro made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up (Good to see it again) and the beginning title sequence was very well done and made you remember that this was indeed a James Bond movie; even down to him uttering the famous line I was waiting the entire movie to hear.

Hell, even Felix Leiter was there (but I would have never picked him out of a line up) and the movie; even with the new updated feel, felt like putting on your favorite pair of shoes again.

There's nothing like seeing the words 'James Bond will return' at the end of the movie; yes its good to see you again old friend, feel free to stay as long as you want.
10/10
This movie actually makes you wanna be BOND
akashp2002-14 December 2006
Honestly, when I first saw the poster of this movie in July 2006, I was disappointed seeing a blond James Bond. I was hoping for either Clive Owen or Eric Bana to take over the role. I even tried to sign a petition to ban casino royale from playing in theaters because I didn't think Daniel Craig would make a good-looking James Bond. But boy oh boy was I wrong or what. This guy actually makes you care about the character...the emotions and his mission. For the first time, I've actually felt moved by the love-story and also the super-human foot-chase in the beginning. Those stunts are so real that watching it just sends chills down your spine. The action was very real (no CGI) which was great. CGI's only look good and belong in movies like THE MATRIX. For Bond however, the character development, the style, the moves and of course the charm is good enough to make the movie a super hit...Daniel Craig did all of that and much more...THE PERFECT BOND. And of course Vesper was amazingly gorgeous. I couldn't take my eyes off her every time she was on screen. Overall, very good movie...something different and you will feel like a "double oh" agent when you watch it. So go and feel it.
9/10
Maybe not the best, but a Better Bond
obrofta18 November 2006
Here I was bemoaning the passing of Pierce Brosnan. I guess it was all about not liking change. Now, Daniel Craig has made me forget all about Pierce (sorry), and a few other miscasts. I believe no one can replace the original...Sean Connery just had it all, and made the athletic prowess and intellectual superiority seem believable. Now, Mr. Craig may not be all that, but I believe he's already better than Dalton and Brosnan. Additionally, I believe Craig fits the model for today's young audiences, who can't seem to get enough of hunks in action films. He's very fit, more so than any Bond before him, and not unpleasant to look at, albeit not owning up to the "je ne sais quoi" of a Connery and Moore. There was just something elegant about Connery and Moore, and "more" than enough man.

This movie got my attention. Plenty of good action with a few goofs (where's the airbag FORD? I guess Bond doesn't look good resting on an airbag OR his laurels, hmmmm?) The gambling scenes were a bit amateurish. After all with the world series of poker and Rounders almost a decade ago, don't you think we know this already? That whole sequence was too predictable. Otherwise, the writing and editing was good.

Before seeing this film, I may have predicted the demise of the Bond installments. However, Mr. Craig has given James new life. I hope we can come up with a good title for the next installment, even if it's original material.

"M...the defibrillator please!"
9/10
Good but incorrect
EmperorNuWolf16 November 2006
I consider myself a Bond fan and Casino Royale is a great addition to the collection, and is a great film. I agree the use of fewer gadgets makes it in line for one of the top Bond films, but it has problems with the plot and defiantly the characters. Casino Royale is supposed to be a prequel to most of the other Bond films. However it uses the newest female M. If it is a prequel it should use a male M as the female M didn't come around till Goldeneye, much later in the literature series. I also think that Brosnan would have been the better choice for Bond, since he is probably the 2nd or 3rd best Bond after Sean Connery.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Spectacular
rutherfordh-8199311 August 2021
Casino Royale is one of the strongest films in the entire James Bond franchise. It has strengths in terms of the story, action, acting and so many more things. Daniel Craig does a brilliant job in taking the character in a new dimension which was very much needed. The action scenes like the Miami Airport chase and the chase on the cranes make an excited pace which is very welcoming. The only issue is that the scenes involving the Poker game can go on for a bit too long, but other than that, it is an incredibly surprising film and a real one to watch.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is back and better than ever
bambino32621 November 2006
Casino Royale marks the twenty-first return of the quintessential stylish spy, James Bond, and does so with so much enthralling action and engrossing story that you will find it hard to look away from screen for even a second of this unique action thriller. Based on Ian Flemming's first novel about the super cool MI6 agent written in 1953, the film captivates audiences by bringing a type of Bond movie that has not been seen before.

Controversial choice for the new James, Daniel Craig, gives a stunning performance and proves his worth as one of the best Bonds of all time. He maintains the character's main traits of being smooth with women and keeping cool under pressure, but adds a level of humanity to the man in black as he struggles with the demands his new double 0 status requires.

Up and coming actress Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, Bond's beautiful leading lady. Audience members feel a real connection with Vesper, as well as other characters, because acting throughout the film is absorbingly superb.

Casino Royale does not follow the usual Bond formula. While high tech computers and tracking devices are used throughout, gadgets such as laser watches are hard to find in this realistic story. There are no gun turrets or rocket launchers that pop out of the hood of Bond's classic Aston Martin DB5 or his brand new Aston Martin DBS. The absence of such formulaic elements does not take away from the film, but rather gives it individuality from other movies in the series.

The story is a major selling point in Casino Royale, as the unbelievable story lines from the previous movies is replaced by one that is compelling and realistic. James Bond has just gained his 007 status and is on his first mission. He's not out to save the world, but to stop a banker from winning a poker game. A slight understanding of poker terms helps during the intense poker scenes or else such expressions as fold, raise, check and all in will be lost on the audience. Casino Royale is not merely a two hour film about a poker game, as exquisite action and chase scenes are found throughout which are so well done that you will most likely stop blinking for ten minutes at a time.

Daniel Craig rivals Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton for being Ian Flemming's definitive James Bond. He plays an amazing egotistic main character that is not bland or one-layered as some previous actors have portrayed the famous spy to be.

Director Martin Campbell seems to do little wrong throughout the picture, as special effects are nearly flawless and camera angles and movements do not try anything special but are nevertheless pleasing to the eye. Campbell has made one of the best Bond movies of all time that is bound to entertain and captivate movie viewers everywhere.
8/10
Much tougher than before
john_oneill4129 March 2010
No doubt about it, you really don't want to annoy the new James Bond. Daniel Craig's Bond will kill you if you get in his way.

This reboot to the series was a risk that really paid off, bringing James Bond up to date and ditching about 40 years of continuity on the way. The one remaining Ian Fleming book finally gets made by Eon after many years waiting.

Daniel Craig portrays a much tougher, more impulsive Bond who in many ways is less sure of himself than before. Judi Dench's M seems much more ruthless than in the previous films, especially when she looks Bond right in the eye with an almost motherly expression on her face and threatens to kill him.

The film itself has a brilliant story with goodies, baddies and everything you would want from a Bond movie. Martin Campbell is one of the best Bond directors and he doesn't disappoint here.

You should watch this now!!!
10/10
One of the best movies I have ever seen in the cinema
trudylyn7 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I couldn't get this movie out of my head for a week after I saw it. It had it's silly moments, it had it's stupid moments. It had unnecessary plot elements. It had unnecessary characters. Yet, this is the first Bond movie that I have ever seen that wasn't a BOND movie. It was a movie that just happened to have a character named BOND in it. Just like the Dr. Who series, it doesn't matter who's playing the part if the story sucks and the production values are crap.

I would have preferred some of the trappings of the first novel to replace the junk that had accreted on the franchise like barnacles over the decades, but I was perfectly happy to find that with the exception of a couple of gadgets (I mean, not everybody carries a recirculating defib unit in their car) this movie could have taken place practically any time and this BOND could have been wandering through practically any era since the tuxedo was invented.

I think it is kinda cute that instead of being "Commander" Bond of the Royal Navy, at one point in the new movie it is suggested or hinted that he is a veteran of the SAS. I can't think of another fellow who has played Bond who could be visualized pounding down a beach with a rucksack filled with an 100 pounds of sand on his back.

If it were truly a "Fleming" movie, it would have all been in B&W and Bond would have driven a Buick or a Bentley, or Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang... And it would have been a humongous car, with a .45 Colt New Service revolver in the glove box. If it were truly a "Fleming" movie, the bond fellow would look like the Superman in the early comics, spit curl and all, but with a scar on his face. If it were truly a "Fleming" movie, there would be cigars and pipes and cigarettes everywhere. Bond would have his own brand of cigarette, with three gold rings on the end, kept in a gunmetal cigarette case. Bond would have a slight French accent, since he grew up in Switzerland and spent time behind the lines in WWII. If the producers wanted to do a "retro" Bond, I think that would be pretty cool, but it would probably rapidly descend into clichés since Fleming himself had no problem engaging in self-parody, particularly since the first book wasn't even written with the reading public in mind.

If "Fleming" were able to see this version of "Casino Royale", I don't think he'd understand it, but I think he'd like the film.
9/10
Those who complain are missing the essence...
iKramerica-115 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie was fantastic as a Bond film, but you have to absorb the whole thing to come to that conclusion. When I heard that they were making Bond "darker and edgier" I cringed, but those reviewers were wrong. This Bond was not darker or edgier than some other Bonds. The critics just think of the cutesy later Moore films and think all Bond's are smarmy and silly. But watch "Live and Let Die" and you'll see that even Moore, in his first turn, was dark and edgy and brutal. And in "The Man With the Golden Gun" he was the epitome of who Bond is.

While I would agree with some of the complaints had I left with 20 minutes remaining in the movie, I think those who are whining didn't get the point. There were parts in the movie where I was worried they had "ruined" the franchise, but that is because I was buying into the critics and my preconceived notions about what I was going to see, not knowing that it would be redeemed in the end.

This was an "origin film" which is the current trend in Hollywood today (due to, paradoxically, the total lack of original ideas). While I generally don't like them, this one was different. It wasn't all mired in flashbacks and brooding about the past. Instead, it shows the birth of a great character. This is what some people miss. They miss the psychological transformation Bond goes through. James Bond is not supposed to "change" as a hero when we look at other Bond films, but he had to get where he is somehow. This movie explains the how...

Bond is lacking the suaveness to start the film, but that's because he hasn't learned it yet. He's a blunt instrument. He's green. He needs to grow. This movie is his growth. This story, though based in the danger posed by money and not something more diabolical evil scheme, shows the newly promoted 007 that he can't just rely on brute force and the odds. He has to defy the odds. M tells him that the lesson he learned is not to trust anyone.

His weakness has always been women (sex), but in this film he allows love to enter the equation. He learns that love is not going to fit into his life, because he can't trust anyone, and to love someone means you must trust them. And they showed this without duplicating the "murder of Mrs. Bond" from the George Lazenby film.

For anyone who still doesn't get it, ask yourself this:

Why was there no Bond Theme at the beginning of the film?

Answer: Because at the beginning of the film, there was no Bond, James Bond, 007. There was just a man named James Bond.

But the music comes at the END. It's because not until the very, very end, has 007 been born. For the first time, he utters his name in the proper manner, with the proper smugness. It's then and only then that James Bond exists, and it's THEN that the Bond Theme finally explodes, and if you get it, you get shivers down your spine.

More than any other origin film I've seen in my life, this movie works on that deep level. I got goosebumps when I heard that theme 2:20 into the film because it was then I knew that James Bond was back from 25 years of exile. And it was all the more shocking when I saw the writer was the same one who delivered the weak films of the last 15 years!
9/10
Bond meets Bourne
davidboze-114 November 2006
I confess I thought most of latest Bond movies had devolved into video games disguised as movies--that is until I actually played an EA Bond video game that had a better story (destruction of New Orleans)and character development than any recent Bond film. Kudos to EON productions for recognizing that the franchise was dying (despite the box office returns) and it was only a matter of time before the audience caught up with that (a la "Batman and Robin") And though I wish Pierce could have gone out on a high note (never say never?), Craig's re-imagining of the role works exceptionally well. The action is brutal. Bond is resourceful, but not superhuman. Even the one-liners and girls are there. The difference is that the story matters, and the tension is real. I don't want to give anything away, so let me just say that despite a couple of minor scenes with clunky dialog, it was thoroughly enjoyable from beginning to end. There is a romantic interlude that started to make me feel a bit like I did at the end of "LOTR: Return of the King", but stick with it, and you'll be begging for more. For the first time since I was a kid, I found myself gripped by a Bond film. The franchise is back to OO status.
10/10
"I'm sorry, that last hand... nearly killed me."
nived8418 November 2006
Bond is back, and edgier than ever before. Casino Royale, much like last summer's Batman Begins, reboots the tired and formulaic James Bond franchise by taking everything up a notch and giving us a darker, more complex Bond, and a script that's smart and sophisticated and creates heroes from the ground up that we care about and sinister villains we love to hate. Better yet – it gives us a reason to give a damn this time, by making things personal. Bond has been played many times before and by many different faces, many will say that Sean Connery was and forever will be the one true Bond and I would have to agree with that. For the last seven years Pierce Brosnan brought 007 to the big screen and he was a great choice as well. Following in his footsteps comes Daniel Craig, a new Bond for a generation; a Bond will killer instincts and sharp wits to match his lethal skills. Living up to the reputations of Brosnan and Connery is just about one of the hardest gigs in Hollywood, but thankfully GoldenEye director Martin Campbell returns to 007 with a great cast and a number of electrifying action sequences to pull you on the edge of your seat. I think Campbell should just direct Bond movies for the rest of his career.

The film starts off with James Bond acquiring his 00 status after a double assassination in Prague, and then after a visually blazing opening credits sequences races us to Madagascar, where Bond is trying to hunt down a bomb maker which ends up in one long breathtaking marathon of an action sequence. When the operation turns into a massive catastrophe M, played with an anger and scorn by Judi Dench, questions if Bond is really the right man to be part of the 00 echelon of MI6. But before she can do anything about it he's off to the Bahamas to independently track down track down a terrorist cell run by a man named Dimitrios. In the process romances his girlfriend, Solange, and thwarts a terrorist bombing.

Bond sure knows how to get around, but when MI6 learns that Dimitrios was funded by an evil banker known as Le Chiffre, played excellently by Mads Mikkelsen, who launders money through a casino in Montenegro to finance terrorists operations around the world Bond is set by MI6 to play against his in a high-stakes poker game. He's accompanied by a beautiful accountant (and cleavage extraordinaire), Vesper Lynd, played by the stunning Eva Green. Bond's interest in her deepens as they face life and death situations together and even some brutal torture (Ouch! Now that's gotta hurt!) at the hands of Le Chiffre. In Montenegro, Bond allies himself with Mathis MI6's local field agent, Mathis. The marathon game proceeds with dirty tricks and violence, raising the stakes beyond blood money and reaching a terrifying climax.

I haven't seen all of Bond movies, but I'm certainly not a stranger to them. A lot of people are saying Casino Royale is the best of the bunch, and as of now it has the highest rating in the 007 series on the Internet Movie Database, at 8.1, with Goldfinger trailing closely behind with 7.8. I'm not sure if Royale is in fact the best Bond film, but it's certainly one of the best and without a doubt the strongest since the 60's, when Connery reined supreme, and that's saying quite a lot really. I liked Craig as Bond, and could easily see him doing more 007 movies. I especially liked his British accent which seems like it's been missing from the series for a really long time. I loved the cars, the locations, the performances, the villains, the babes (oh the babes!) and the action. Casino Royale is an excellent film, with its only flaw being that it doesn't quite know when to cash its chips in; running about twenty minutes too long, but even that didn't seem to impact my feels about it. This is a solid and exciting thriller and perhaps the best action film of the year (sorry M:I:III). Bond is most certainly back and more alive than ever before.
9/10
Neat cameo in CR-anybody notice?
moviemaniac200224 November 2006
Okay, bond fanatics ( or even casual fans), anybody notice one of the Casino Royale card players is Tsai Chin, who, almost 40 years ago, lolled in bed with Sean Connery during the "You Only Live Twice " pre-credits sequence...just before she pushes the "up" button on the lethal murphy bed, arranging 007's fake death. ("Darling", she coos,"I'll give you very best....duck") About the movie....Craig is Connery's equal in sheer toughness...he just needs more of a sense of humor...(not that they have to go back to the lame quips, but a little more wit would help...otherwise, Bond is no different from Rambo or all the faceless lunks played by Steven Seagal. Lumpy screen writing, which is why the movie seems to re-start into a whole other movie after the torture scene...but I can't wait to see where Craig takes the character in the next one....
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A Very Different Bond Film.
killbill_288 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What came I say about the new Bond film. Its a very different film altogether. The movie starts off without the famous "gun barrel" scene. Instead the movies starts in black and white, (These are flashbacks or something). The gun barrel does appear buts it in color and the main theme starts after that. Casino Royale is more like a prequel then a continue on into the series. Daniel Craig plays a darker Bond then Pierce Brosnan but I'm going to say that I sadly missed Pierce Brosnan's Bond, he played one of the best since Sean Connery.

Martin Campbell who directed "Goldeneye" which is still one of the best Bond films to date returns to the helm. The action is great and stunts are out of this world. The special effects are excellent in this film, and very little CGI is shown unlike "Die Another Day" which was full of it, which made in a little too much for a Bond film. The editing to great, the story is great and the Bond girl Eva Green is hot, sexy and perfect for the role. Judi Dench returns to the role of "M" and lets just say that you wouldn't want to miss with her in this film, she's straight down to the point and swears a lot.

But the film also has a few down flaws and looses stars because of it. The first thing is the "Gun Barrel" scene at the start it doesn't feel like a Bond film without it. Second there's very little Bond music in this film the only Bond music is at the end with the ending credits. Third its missing Bond gadgets, a Bond film must have gadgets but this film has none at all. Fourth its missing many Bond elements, There's no "Q", "Moneypenny". But the film does return Felix Leiter since he was last seen in Licence To Kill. The Overall result is a little disappointing but its a still a great film. But it doesn't feel like its a part of the series, its feels like "Never Say Never Again" Bond movie.
10/10
One of the action masterpieces
ollieheap20 February 2019
It joins Die Hard, Raiders and T2 as an action masterpiece.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Will actually see again in theater
ursa-lunar19 November 2006
I admit it, I get out to the movies rarely. Very few over the last several years have motivated me to make plans to actually go out. This one I had to see; it was BOND, my goofy family LOVES Bond movies. We all have our favorite Bond actors too and argue their merits/downfalls with glee. Saw this with my brother and Pop last night and am taking my husband out to see it as soon as possible!

This Bond movie didn't need the fluffier trappings of the franchise to tell the story (No Q. No outlandish gadgets. No super-villain hideouts that turn into space ships. No Moneypenny to banter with.), the plot was tight, the action scenes were more believable without losing any excitement, the acting was significantly better than past Bonds, and the 2 1/2 hours flew by all too fast! The movie also had just enough grit to remind the viewer that Ian Fleming did have a background in espionage.

Oh yeah, and the little tongue-in-cheek comments were delivered w/o smarminess - LOVED that! I've been a Sean Connery-as-Bond fan since I was quite young and think Daniel Craig lives up to Connery's toughness & charm yet takes Bond a few steps further as far as depth of character.
3/10
Was this really a James Bond movie ? I doubt it
Iceman21361922 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had high expectations for Casino Royale, but boy was I disappointed. Now this is from someone who seen every Bond movie there is, I loved Sean Connery and even the Timothy Dalton ones...but this isn't a Bond movie. Where is Moneypenny, Q ? Where is all the charm from the previous Bond that made Bond what he is? Casino Royale is Bond without the charm, the gadgets and the action. Instead what we get is a plug for every Sony product out there, how many times did they plug the cellphone and the laptop, what is this, a commercial ? The movie starts well but the action is very lacking, especially at the end. The scenes in the Casino drag on for way too long. And what is this, Bond doesn't even kill the baddie? Give me a break. Had this movie been made with different characters names, it would a been a generic lifeless average spy movie. This isn't Bond...

Why the need to reboot the series like Batman Begins? The past Bond movies were not even close to being a flop, so why break a winning formula? As for Daniel Craig as Bond, well I think he was okay, but he had to work with such a bad script that it's not really fair to judge him on such a poor movie.
10/10
One of the BEST Bonds I've seen
mikhail007-119 November 2006
I have been a fan of 007 since I first saw one, which was in 1997. I have watched all James Bond movies, and i will say with great confidence Casion Royale is easily one of the top 10 of all Bond Films. On the one hand, I am a Bond car enthusiast, and this movie disappointed me in that aspect. However, there was enough going on that i did not miss the car. The punch lines are one of the greatest ever, and Daniel Craig, in my opinion, is fit for the job of a 00. From watching the trailers, i thought he would be a little bit on the feminine side, as in i would feel a little gay watching him, but he was a man, and did not make feel awkward at all. The non-stop action was enough for me to forget about the classic Bond moments, like Q, and the high tech gadgets and so on. Over all, Graig fits Bond very well, and the new 007 is awesome. not to mention the opening credit animations and song were top notch.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A big 'up yours' to all of Daniel Craigs' critics
hs572923 November 2006
Despite the ridiculous level of controversy that Daniel Craigs' selection as bond caused, i had remained optimistic about this new, 'back to the basics' look for James Bond (after all, it couldn't get worse than the previous film!) I was expecting a return to a solid, average Bond film. Instead i was blown away. Craigs' Bond is a real secret agent, unlike Moore or Brosnan you can actually believe him physically capable of the stunts being performed, and he has lost none of the cheeky charm or sexual innuendo that has always characterised James Bond, and yet he still manages to bring a depth to the role that is all his own. Mads Mikkelsen provides a brilliantly realistic villain, Eva Green is a lovely and talented bond girl, and Judi Dench is, as always, wonderful in the role of M...but they all stand in Craigs' shadow. After all the flak he has received via the internet during the build up to this film, it feels wonderful to be able to throw these unfounded doubts back in the teeth if those people who were prepared to write Daniel Craig off.

The Best Bond Since Sean Connery, Daniel Craig has updated and deepened the character of James Bond, all the while preserving everything we love about him. A truly magnificent performance.
10/10
Simply amazing!
Minty205725 November 2006
I have never been much of a fan of Bond movies. I always found them adequate but this has converted me.

This is by far the best Bond ever and, i believe, the best Bond actor. A far more realistic portrayal of a spy. The series has been improved by taking out all of the gadgets and Q which made the stories a lot harder to believe but this one is very realistic.

You may be put off by the length of it but you shouldn't be. I didn't even notice how long it went on for as it was just such a fast moving story.

Go out and see it right now because this is one film which should be on your list of favourites.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
What Bond should have been a long long time ago...
filip-galic24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw movie yesterday...and what can I say ?? It does feel different, and since I've grown up with Brosnan's stylish gadget-packed films had to be careful not to fall into abyss of not liking Casino Royale. And I always imagine Bond just like that. Sharp, brutal, realistic. His character is not taken over the top nor is this Bond we've seen in Brosnan or Moore. We don't have 'larger then life' characters. Hell, possibly main villain throughout the story, Mr.White drives with his car to his residence on lake (?) like he is some kind of businessman, unlike Drax or Graves who make their way home (which happens to be ice palace) in futuristic ice-glider.

CR simply feels this way - here, TODAY and yet it has that good old (somewhat 'shaken, not stirred) Bond style. Locations are awesome. Montenegro is pictured to be mecca of jet-set and is actually fun to hear talk and see signs on language you actually understand (I am from Croatia and Montenegro are our neighbors, so to speak :) ). Prague, Uganda, Bahamas and Venice also are pictured better then any of last 3-4 movies.

Craig is awesome as Bond. Eva Green is awesome as Vesper although their romance is maybe too long, but I never thought to look at my watch or think 'God when will it stop'. Mikklesen is excellent as 'Le Chiffre' and there is hardly anyone who I found annoying in scenes.

Same goes for action. Rather intelligent, unlike Die Another Day, it fits exactly where it needs. Airport chase scene is one of the best I have seen so far.
6/10
A Bond that is macho but a film that is full of flaws.....
dinesh_cena198920 April 2007
CASINO ROYALE hit cinemas worldwide in late 2006. It made box-office success and everyone was crazy over this new Bond, Daniel Craig. The film however is crippling disappointment.

Bond travels to a casino and fights the evil minions. The film is not macho and it is truly terribly disappointing. A remake of the 1967 hit film starring Sean Connery, Craig executes the film very well but the script was horrible. It was Craig that literally saved this film from failure. Director Martin Campbell should focus more on the plot and the acting then the violence and the mild sexuality. If you want a good Bond film, go rent the Connery DVD's but CASINO ROYALE is quite okay: THE GOOD Craig is superb. He gives the perfect Bond image and everyone thought he was better than Brosnan which is true. Superb acting, Craig.

THE BAD The whole film. It was somehow meaningless. There was this fight scene and whole Bond drama inflicting in the wrong places. It lacked the energy and excitement of the previous Bond's. Worth a viewing but skip the DVD.

Overall: B-
8/10
Not bad at all
nick_tempsperdu5 December 2006
OK. So the film was about 30 minutes too long. And the title sequence sucked big time. But the film wasn't bad at all.

Craig is James Bond. Pure and simple.

Sure he lacks the brutal grace of the early Sean Connery, but he more than makes up for it in sheer physicality of his performance. Like Batman Begins, the film take us back to the beginning and enables us to watch Bond evolve into OO7. Smart move.

The action sequences were breath-taking. Loved the 'free running' stunts at the beginning (and Craig crashing through the door was classic). And nice irony throughout, in particular the 'shaken not stirred' gag. 8 out of 10. Would've been 9 out of 10 if there'd a been a tad less blatant product placement (Eva Green cooing: "Omega. Lovely.")
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond, I've seen
inflamator4 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the best movies, I've ever seen (not only Bond series).

Strange for me is the time-line of the series. How come, that Bond gets 00 only now? But then I thought up, that You can't take Bond series as one big story, but every movie separately. However - next Bond is a follow up of Casino Royale.

Well - I have CR on blu-ray on my own, and I will see it many many times more, than I saw. As a matter of fact - I will see it no less, than once in two - three months.

I recommend it to every Bond fan and every other human, that wants to see a good movie.
9/10
Nice overhaul...
claybo7619 June 2007
Very enjoyable Bond film. Some of the action sequences suffer from overkill, but are still exciting, if a little convoluted. I was almost ready to blast the movie for not including the James Bond theme, but...oh, you'll have to watch it.

Daniel Craig is a great Bond. Full of pith and vinegar, cold and charismatic, sexy and sinister. It's almost as if the opening black and white sequence tells you to forget everything you knew about Bond and the franchise so far...this is Bond re-born, year zero.

Once the movie gets into the plot of the original novel, the movie is in full swing. Obviously plot devices such as mobile phones and state-of-the-art MI6 communication have been inserted to modernise Bond, but the story does not suffer for it.

I've heard a lot of people say that they hate Bond movies, but they really liked this one. People also comment that they don't like the gadgets either. What the hell? Are the gadgets not one of the most exciting elements of a Bond film? The suitcase in From Russia With Love? The key-ring from The Living Daylights? The Lotus car/submarine from The Spy Who Loved Me? The Aston Martin from Goldfinger? Come on! This is certainly a re-invention, but the lack of some Bond traits disappointed me. Die Another Day was, quite rightly, hailed as the worst movie of the franchise, and CR does set things right again. A wonderful sign of things to come...but please, don't forget the roots of the series. Some things must be updated, but not everything.

All in all a very good movie, Bond film or not.
10/10
Bruised Bond
jjeffrey4 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Bond that Daniel Craig portrays here is the most complex ever brought to the screen. What is so remarkable in the 'new' Bond is the fearless way in which the character's vulnerability is made apparent. The shower scene that Craig shares with Eva Green is the most extraordinary realisation of the maturity of the portrayal: instead of a cheap thrill, here is Bond, the ruthless killer, slumped, traumatised almost as completely as his love interest by the brutal nature of what he does. This is fine acting and great cinema.

It is hard to 'like' this Bond, in the way that some of his predecessors may have been likable, but it impossible not to be drawn into his terrifying world. Craig and the writers have done a fabulous job: this Bond probably has the least dialogue of any of the incarnations of the super-spy, but less is definitely more. This 'silent but deadly' approach lends a brooding intensity to the character that has never really reached the screen before. Welcome back Mr.Bond.
9/10
It's Bond... but only better
dj-lord9 January 2007
After the fairly dismal Die Another Day (Pierce Brosnan aside) I was wondering what would become of the Bond franchise. I have to admit that, like many fans, I too had some doubts when Daniel Craig was cast as the suave secret agent James Bond but I vowed to "give him a chance" and I have to admit he hasn't let anyone down - Daniel Craig quite frankly IS BOND! And he's a proper ice-cold, 'ard bastard, no-nonsense Bond at that!!

This is without a doubt the best Bond movie in quite a while. Hearkening back to the "shoot-first-too-late-for-questions" Sean Connery-era, Daniel Craig brings back some of the brooding, ice-cold, ruthlessness that went missing from the character post-Connery while still showing well needed vulnerability (after all Bond is human, not Superman).

The whole movie itself breathes new life in to the franchise and brings it right up to the updated action/spy movie standard that it deserves. The movie is brilliant - plenty of story, character and action. Craig is excellent playing the main role and the supporting cast are also excellent. The only thing that I didn't like initially were the credits and title song, which is why I only gave it 9 stars - but even they are growing on me now!! Can't wait for any future sequels... absolutely excellent!! Daniel Craig deserves to be sat at home, sipping a Vodka-Martini and wearing a smug grin!
10/10
So much different, so much excellent!
StrayFeral15 December 2006
Last night saw the movie at a local theater. I am big James Bond fan, but about this movie was totally skeptic, when saw picture of Daniel Craig. I was fist time great disappointed, when saw "Golden Eye" - new actor crew, new M, new Bond, new music composer...new everything, except the good old Q (everybody loves Q!) For me Bond was a legend, kind of superhero already and they made him look so casual and boring...until "Casino Royale".

This movie is very different from previous movies in few things: - Blond actor - Love story shown in much wider scope - Now even Q is gone! (damn!) - Theme song is not cabaret-style - it's rock. - Increasing amount of computer effects - Less impressive auto stunts - Decreased amount of gadgets - Spectacular human stunts (Yamakasi-guy)

I know this is much. But the movie is great anyway. Must say very very good one! A must see for every Bond fan!

Probably the most noticeable new thing is the much wider scope used to show the love story of Bond. The only thing coming to my mind to compare is "Star Wars Episode II" Anakin-Amidala love, just there is kinda boring (in my opinion), unlike "Casino Royale", where it is shown much more precise and in-depth, with great sense of detail - but not much - just as needed.

Second thing to notice: I am not impressed by the auto-stunts. Yes, spectacular, good, but not impressive as needed. Need something as the truck stunts in "License to kill" or Remi-Julien team stunts.

Very very good, actually great idea was the black Yamakasi stunt guy in the beginning of the movie (the one later killed in the embassy). I was wondering when Bond crew would come to the idea of using Yamakasi guys - they are so brilliant! Need more of them for next James Bond movie.

About the gadgets - there is no anything special, except very very few things. Everything else is Sony - all cell phones Sony-Ericsson, the laptop is Sony Vaio. I don't care much. Actually the other new things were so good and amusing, that did not noticed much the absence of laser-watches, hidden in car Stingers and everything else.

Music is wonderful. As big Bond fan I was expecting cabaret-style theme song, such as "Goldfinger" for example (one of the best Bond songs ever!! in my opinion). Of course this is not the first non-cabaret Bond theme song - for example A-ha's "Living Daylights" is another example, and there are more of them. But a rock song?! Must say I was surprised. The song is wonderful. Still listen to it. Performance should not be questioned - ex-Soundgarden vocalist Chris Cornell is doing great with this one.

The opening animation is very original idea. There is something similar and same time totally different from other Bond openings. Maybe because it is somehow not so traditional...no chicks too :) (very stylish anyway!) Reminds me of old computer games "Another World" and "Flashback" - same kind of graphics.

Things I really miss in Bond movies: - Desmond Llewelyn as Q - John Barry as main music composer - Better character development, especially for the bad guys (example: Jaws was great character, Goldfinger, Oddjob too, also Drax - there was something to remember about these characters) - Good theme songs - since "Golden Eye", I consider "The world is not enough"'s theme song as best (my all time favorite is still "Goldfinger"'s theme song)

I saw all Bond movies. Some more than once. I love them all. And love all songs. For me in general every new Bond movie is a holiday (as well as every new "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater" or similar ("Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer", "Wakeboarding Unleashed") computer game, but this is off-topic now). "Casino Royale" is a must-see for every Bond-fan. For non-Bond-fans this would be a very good spy-thriller, but I promise - no one would be disappointed.

This is one of the best Bond movies, hope more will follow.
8/10
'That last hand nearly killed me'
fidelio7412 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig silences his detractors with a splendid turn as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007. Craig's Bond is cold and ruthless and very focused. Director Martin Campbell, whose 1995 Bond film 'Goldeneye' introduced Pierce Brosnan as the British superspy, returns to the franchise, and the result is a very classy adventure with some truly breathtaking action sequences.

Described as the 'best poker player in the service', Bond is assigned to participate in a high-stakes poker tournament being held in Montenegro. His target is international terrorist Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) who will be his main opponent in the game. M (Judi Dench) believes that, should Le Chiffre win the tournament, he will use the prize money to finance terrorism. So it is up to Bond to beat him.

The highlight of 'Casino Royale' is a breathtaking 'free running' chase early in the movie which really has to be seen to be believed. It is exceptionally well shot and very well executed. Another major action set piece takes place at Miami International Airport, as Bond races to stop a terrorist from destroying a massive new aircraft which is about to be unveiled to the public. And, as the film nears its conclusion, we find James in Venice, battling to save his love interest, Treasury Agent Vesper Lynd (a sultry Eva Green), from Le Chiffre-affiliated thugs. This showdown happens inside a rapidly-sinking building, and is exciting and brilliantly edited.

'Casino Royale' may not be the best Bond film but it is a worthy and welcome addition to the franchise. It is unfortunate that MGM/UA, the studio behind the Bond catalogue, has gone bankrupt, creating an uncertain future for the series. Hopefully we will see more of Bond in the years to come.
4/10
Not the James Bond you know, not the Montenegro you know
Weredegu28 January 2007
James Bond movies are not supposed to have a clever plot, only an entertaining one. So you go to the cinema with lowered expectations regarding plot credibility, from the word go. In a deviation from this norm, this new James Bond film went through three distinct stages for me. It started by portraying Bond as brutal enough to be more of a real intel operative, hit-man-like in fact (no, Jason Bourne-like in fact). But then it got back more to the usual pattern in the second stage, when fantastic locations, hot women and some cool jokes are more important than credibility. I could still enjoy the film at that point. However, towards the end the story took some turns that were stupid even by the special James Bond standards. I'm sorry, it's all just terribly bad after that. The ending would be more fitting in a B-movie. In addition to my dismay over all that, it was promised in the tidal wave of media hype that the plot would at some point arrive in Montenegro, which I longed to see again, after having spent beautiful times there. OK, so however stupid, the plot would at least move us to a place I wished to see. Then they showed me Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic instead, telling me it's Montenegro. I didn't like that. As a reward for some good action sequences, my vote would be 5. In punishment for the disrespect to Montenegrins, it's only 4.
6/10
Not particularly stirred ...
concraig16 November 2006
I have a feeling I'm in a very small minority here ... but having seen Casino Royale at a preview last night, I was very disappointed with it, particularly given all the glowing reviews. Daniel Craig is fine, but the plot was a mess and the villain wasn't all that scary. The film seemed to lurch from one set piece to another, and the twists at the end were frankly baffling (can anyone explain to me what happened to the Algerian boyfriend? Is he alive or dead? When was he kidnapped?) Okay, I admit Daniel Craig looks great in his tight swim shorts, and Montenegro looks extremely pretty, but as a film it was pretty dull (and way too violent.)
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bland, But Yet Bold...Craig, Please Stay
asam312218 November 2006
I am not a huge James Bond fan. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all the movies, and from what I've seen James Bond is best portrayed by Sean Connery. But if Sean Connery didn't ever play Bond in Dr. No, then Daniel Craig would be the best. He plays the character perfectly with lapses of emotion and then no emotion.

The story places Bond in a poker game with 9 other players. If the funds go to a sadistic French man, then terrorist organizations will have 150 million dollars more.

With a beautiful treasury agent (Eva Green) at his side, Bond plays poker and plays poker and plays poker some more. "Casino Royale" is the Bond film that hardcore fans have been waiting for. Craig shows how fantastic an actor he is in this picture filled with violence, womens, and, who knew, comedy.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
James Bond at his best
ajay-9267226 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a perfect movie for the action lovers,high octane action sequences,hot girls,global terrorists and a game of poker which is really interesting to watch and Bond is set to stop this big organisation who is responsible for financing many of the terrorists.I think Craig is probably the best bond ever,he is arrogant,egoistic and the biggest of all being his trigger finger and the opening sequence was really good
10/10
One of the best movies I saw back in November 16th, 2006.
guyhayder25 August 2020
This is a fantastic, adrenaline, thrilling, action, story, amazing movie.

Daniel Craig is a great 007. The best. This movie was the first movie to inspire me to become a self defensive person. The music/score was superb.

The music is too good. Everything in this movie is perfect. Vesper never loved Bond. M was a loser. Daniel Craig is James Bond 007.

This should be in the Top 250. At number 1.

Simply- the best 007 movie to date. I hope No Time to Die will be like this one.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond IS Back
garygibbons17 November 2006
Yesterday was humble pie time for me after watching 2 hours plus of first class entertainment. I will confess to backing the CraigNotBond lobby early last year and I was WRONG! Hugh Jackman was my preference and although I still feel he would have made a superb 007, Craig deserves another chance.

What Craig lacks in the movie star stakes he makes up via his acting ability. He has created a Bond closer in character than his predecessors. Don't get me wrong, Connery is still the quintessential Bond in my eyes, but Craig gets very close. Had he been closer in looks and not just the manner of Flemings Bond then I'm sure he would take the mantle of best ever Bond.

Every Bond has brought a certain something to the role, Connery the poise of a panther combined with that sardonic charm, Lazenby an athleticism not seen (until now), Moore captured the suave sophistication of the man, Dalton (another fine actor) delivered a new depth to the role and Brosnan breathed new life into an ailing franchise with a studied portrayal. Daniel Craig seems to combine all of these qualities and delivers them with a wonderfully delivered performance.

What we see here is a Bond with a devil may care attitude, an arrogance which slowly transforms on the screen to become a controlled menace. He dispatches justice with a steely eyed focus and, with a swagger, moves on to the next challenge.

I don't want to spoil reader's enjoyment by going into a full review of the movie but there are a few observations I'd like to make.

David Arnold has stepped into John Barry's shoes admirably once more and delivers a quality score. Subtle little touches in the soundtrack throughout support Bond's growth into the Bond we know and love. I particularly liked the subtle Bond riff when he dons the Tux just before the card game.

Visually every set and location adds quality to the whole production. Stunning cinematography, especially the Venice scenes.

Judy Dench delivers a delightful portrayal of M. Scolding Bond verbally on more than one occasion with aplomb and using a few more expletives that we've heard in the past with humorous undertones.

The Bond girls are gorgeous and thankfully can act…..remember Britt Ekland, Tanya Roberts? The Astons are there, although short lived and the gadgets are believable. Yes there is a healthy dose of product placement but it isn't a distraction.

If I have any negative comment for the movie, following a high octane first 20 minutes, it does lull and at 144 minutes it's a little too long.

Casino Royale, Bond movie aside, is a well delivered action thriller which proves that Bond IS Back.
9/10
Whoops
NortonAddict19 November 2006
To be honest, I'm not impressed with the Bond excursions after Goldeneye. I adore Daniel Craig from some of his other parts (Road to Perdition, Layer Cake), but I expected this to be just another ho-hum addition to the legacy.

WRONG.

This, to me, beats out any of the other Bond flicks and Craig is either equal to Brosnan or Connery (Connery's the best one of the past), I just haven't quite decided yet Craig's place in the ranking.

The action was drawn out, more believable - as long as you discount the elongated chase in the beginning - and it's not anywhere near as easy for Bond to get the job done (or made to look so) as in the other movies.

The plot followed the book much more closely than many of the other shows which naturally made it exponentially better. The eye candy was there for both sexes; I've decided that Eva Green is someone to watch for both acting and pure beauty and Craig is very handsome any way you cut it.

Lastly, Bond was somewhat harder and more vicious in this interpretation than in others. He was subtle instead of over the top, growing up instead of seemingly overcompensating. I got much more out of the violence in this film because it seemed more realistic - he acted on personal vendettas, necessity, and pure spite on some occasions. There was more emotion than the norm of "Yes I'm awesome and probably going to sleep with several women on this trip," more of a very guarded man with little flashes of humor, vulnerability, and a serious mean streak.

This Bond is much more satisfying than the others have been, I'm just hoping the standard is as high for the next film. I'm fairly confident that if they just keep 3 things from this the next will be a huge success - keep the director (did Goldeneye, Mask of Zorro), Craig and his moods, and lastly keep to the book.

Recommend it, and seeing it more than once!
8/10
A slickly polished spy thriller...
RagingDraugr20 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
...with, as you'd expect, plenty of action - but with a surprising emphasis on tension and on tentative expectation as well (mostly to do with the high-stakes poker game which gives the film its namesake). The assured direction of the film also complements a well-written story with quality cinematography, a sympathetic but nonetheless imposing villain (played by the always wonderful Mads Mikkelsen) and a great deal of chemistry between Bond (played by Daniel Craig, who gives the character depth as simultaneously a suave gentlemen, cold killer, reckless rookie and troubled soul) and Vesper Lynd (played by Eva Green), an enigmatic and intelligent counterpart to Bond. However, the film's biggest flaws are with some elements of its presentation and the dragging and slow final third or quarter. The film, despite being just over two hours long, maintains a good pace up until that last quarter of the film that is mostly made up of wedging in as much romance filler between Bond and Vesper as possible (as a means to drive home the impact of her betrayal and eventual death/suicide). That, to me, doesn't make sense, considering the film got across their romance just fine without it with a believable arc in their relationship with witty dialogue and mind games. My other criticisms are with the location title cards, which are a huge pet peeve of mine (Filmmakers, respect your audience's intelligence and use the establishing shot for what its named for - please!) and the spy tech and computer screens, which feels like low budget NCIS (yeah, that's a pretty negligible nitpick, but hey-ho, worth bringing up).

Overall: 8/10, very very high 7 or low low 9
9/10
One of the best Bond movies ever
jamilsaid26 November 2006
Great movie, the new James bond is up to the task. One of the best Bond movies I've seen, with everything you can expect, and more.

The new Bond performance was on par with that of Sean Connery, which was THE James Bond. If you like 007, don't miss it, you won't be disappointed. Review ends here, but there's the minimum lines of text required, thus I will repeat it again.

Great movie, the new James bond is up to the task. One of the best Bond movies I've seen, with everything you can expect, and more.

The new Bond performance was on par with that of Sean Connery, which was THE James Bond. If you like 007, don't miss it, you won't be disappointed.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
FANTASTIC movie! Daniel Craig was a brilliant choice!
osullivanr1 December 2006
The best Bond movie to date! That's right - it's better than any of them! Casting Daniel Craig (whom I thought would be great in the role anyway after seeing Layer Cake a year ago) was a really brilliant choice to fill the suit left behind by Pierce Brosnan. After seeing Casino Royale there really is no doubt that Craig was a worthy successor to the franchise.

The actual movie in and of itself was more real-world and less fantastic gadgetry, bringing a grittier and dirtier inexperienced Bond to life and steering way clear of the improbably mundane trappings of an "impending doom for the world" film. No, the plot within Casino Royale is more believable because it doesn't rely on James doing anything more than keeping his cool and keeping his feet on the ground.

Of the entire franchise I believe Casino Royale really takes the lead in the pack, perhaps by a nose, as a spectacularly grounded and hard-hitting James Bond embarks upon his first mission and truly earns his keep as a double-o agent.

Great job, Mr. Craig... please return soon!
10/10
Best Bond in years
mhltan17 November 2006
I saw a charity screening of Casino Royale at BAFTA yesterday and in my opinion, this is the best Bond movie that has come out in recent years. No more megalomaniac cartoon villains stroking white cats. Gone are the gadgets, Miss Monneypenny and a martini shaken, not stirred, but just simply a martini. What remains quintessentially Bond however, are the exotic locales, the gorgeous women, the tuxedo and the Aston Martin. Daniel Craig shows that he is definitely the right man to fill in the shoes of previous Bonds and he proved that he's a worthy successor. He plays Bond with recklessness, drive and passion. I definitely recommend this to any Bond fan. It is definitely refreshing to see Bond back as his originator Ian Fleming created him.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Casino Royale gives hope to well written scripts
westend_massive754 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I heard that Daniel Craig was going to be Bond, I cried foul like every other Bond purist. I assumed that the EON production had succumbed to Hollywood pressure and was about to turn this franchise into another Tom Cruise type vehicle. For the first time in many years I walked in expecting nothing, and walked out with nothing but good things to say about this film. While Daniel still doesn't naturally fit the Bond role he does fit James Bond slowly becoming the Bond we all know and love. Also although I'm not big on the Bond movies showing emotion, I thought that this was written extremely well. Craig's voice while not a refined as all the other Bonds (rather high pitched for my taste), and body seems a bit overdone (like something out of an Arnold/Stallone movie), these are the only things that I can honestly say was wrong with the movie, which are really petty. While the movie does drag a little towards the end (like a sprinter running a marathon), it still doesn't let you off of the high that the rest of the movie has given you, and eventually gets back on pace. You feel Craig's physical (and believe me he does experience that) pain, along with his emotional anguish. Craig's Bond is vulnerable, raw, and awkward, but these are all the things you would expect from a young Bond. I have nothing but good things to say about the script, it is a well written script, that allows Craig to shine with what he does best……"ACT"! Craig was always a great actor, and does what any great actor does when give a good script (shine)! While the other Bonds may have the look (except Dalton), and the gadgets, this Bond redo relies on heavy locale and a great story. Make no mistake, this Bond is still filled with action, and explosions, just not on the grand scale we have become accustomed to. While he may not be Bond, he has made me a believer that if they can keep the story well written, that the franchise is in great hands. Craig's version while he may not be the athlete with the most talent on your team, he still gives the most effort and you can't take that away, and sometimes effort is better than just having the look/gift. While not Bond still does Bond more justice than the beloved Roger Moore. Watching this movie makes you wish that Pierce Brosnan had scripts this well written. I have to give Casino Royale an 8 out of 10.
10/10
Absolutely excellent.
jonnysumstoleyabike19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I read through all the 1 star comments and every single one of them seems to misunderstand the entire concept of this movie. It is the beginning of Bond...how is that difficult to understand? This is not supposed to have a traditional Bond feel until the very end when he has finally become James Bond. There is no Q because would you really trust a new agent with all of the top of the range gadgets. Yes he crashed his car....that makes him a bad Bond??? No, it was either crash the car or mush up the Bond girl. The vodka-martini joke...just another way of showing that James Bond hasn't found his way yet. This was a very well made movie and I am confused about how people can say it had no storyline. It had probably the most complex storyline of all the Bond movies, rather than merely building up a story to a point with a sufficient environment to use a Bond gadget. Please don't even comment on the movie unless you are smart enough to understand it.
8/10
Pick, Good Pick..
yikess627 January 2007
Maybe I'm biased but i saw Daniel Craig in 2 films before this one and was impressed enough that i thought to myself he's headed to a very large rise in the biz... those films were.. The Jacket and Layer Cake... oddly enough i didn't catch his name fully so i didn't realize who was playing the newest bond.. and so in a sense i predicted right.. and gladly so.. he's very cool to watch .. got that Steve McQueenism going on with a bit of a pug look (Charles Bronson). He likes what he does and he does what he likes well.. I'm pleased that he's the next Bond to carry the series and he will carry it as well as Connery if he stays interested.. as for the movie, it was nicely put together and exciting with just enough spots to make you wanna pulverize the bad guys and kiss the goils.. (lol).. as with most Bond films.. shot with beautiful places in mind and lavishness enough to go round .. well done.. the series survives thanks to a great choice for the newest bond alumni to be and daring scenes.. as they say .. carry on McDuff .. as a side note i felt that Layer Cake was a grooming movie .. to test Craig if he could be a Star.. glad i was right....
7/10
Yeah well, I don't know...
MacBalthus2 December 2006
New actor, new style, new controversies...orthodox 007-movie lovers already started crying as soon as they saw the color of Craig's hair. Ridicoulos view of things, if you ask me. I saw quite a few interviews before I watched the movie yesterday and people like Martin Campell, Daniel Craig, Eva Green and some producers as well talked about the new style, the new Bond: Vulnerable, with flaws, harder, more realistic, closer to the book. Great, I thought, and where is the 007 in all this? On one hand, I like broken characters. I like hard human heroes. I like it, when a man, who has to be the perfect tool, aches and breaks under this weight.

On the other hand, I always liked it when Bond mostly on his own dashed into the crazy villain's head quarter, fought the bodyguard, the villain, destroyed everything and rescued the girl to have sex with her right afterward. I'm a movie guy, I haven't read a 007 novel.

So now, I'm not sure what I should think about the new Bond. It's a good thing to add some depth to the action hero but does James Bond need depth? I guess it's everyone's choice, whether if they embrace the Craig-Bond or miss the old days with funny gadgets, impossible stunts and the necessary joke afterward.

I personally found myself in a mixture of the good old "Die Hard"-times along some candy-for-the-eye-moments and some of the best realistic stunts ever made. Remember, realistic is flexible. And then, don't forget the depth.

I was near hurling when I watched "Die another day". It seemed that director Lee Tamahori imitated Mel Brooks. With that in the back of the mind, some improvement surely happened. But I personally wish for the golden middle between "Casino Royale" and "Die another day". And I want Q back.

There's not much to complain about the handcrafts in this movie. All the actors do a good job, the action is decent, the plot is full and plausible, the settings are, as usual, gigantic post cards and camera, light, cuts, everything works good.

I'd give a 6.5, if possible, but a 7 is also adequate.
9/10
a bond to save the franchise
kevin-caprani20 November 2006
I lost interest in bond films a long time ago, after the overblown series of moore films a line of inadequate pretenders with the exception of lazenby have come and gone, i didn't even bother to see them at the cinema just watched them when they came on TV, i wasn't missing much, gadgets and set piece battles with explosions to finish off became boringly predictable, the sort of fare you watch with Christmas dinnner.This latest bond is the first to motivate me to go to the cinema and i am glad i did, a genuinely good film much closer to ian flemings original character, i grew up with the connery and moore bonds so my favorite naturally has been connery, but craig is superior even to connery, more depth to his character and more menace as a believable man of violence, as flemings character was. Thankfully a tight script and good casting is preferred to gadgets, great entertainment with a real edge, most important craig portrays a bond you wouldn't want to mess with who can say that of moore, dalton,or brosnan? well worth an 8.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Definitely Bond at his best
chinedunwanede19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After watching this movie, it is hard to believe that some people thought Daniel Craig wouldn't pull it off. If anyone of his damn critics took their time to see his performances in movies such as "Layer Cake" and "Munich", they would never have doubted his abilities as an actor let alone his abilities as an action movie star. Daniel Craig certainly showed in this movie that he was the right choice to replace Pierce Brosnan. I thought Pierce Brosnan was an excellent Bond but Craig is definitely a better Bond. The movie was excellent from start to finish and had one o the best chase scenes i have ever seen in a movie and no automobiles were involved. It was nice to see that James Bond was also human and capable of falling in love and not just a killing machine. DEFINITELY WORTH EVERY PENNY PAID TO SEE IT
10/10
BBest BBond
carolethecatlover9 December 2006
This is Bond as written. I have read the books. I worked at a cinema that had Bond Fests. This is superb. Of course, Judy Dunch is her usual superlative self, we expect nothing less. Daniel Craig, coming off the imminently watchable 'Layer Cake', is the personification of James, James Bond as written. Vesper Lynd gets all the best lines tho'. Her accent is a real worry. It is all over the park. Perfect English, but not a native speaker, a yank trying too hard to sound British? A touch of French? Who is she? Craig gets the accent just right, someone coming up in the world from an ordinary background. Mads Mikkelson is a find. A believable villain, and he just wants money! Not world domination. I like it! The story is simplistic, but clearly set out. This Bond is a keeper. But we will have to see to it that he gets a few 'other' roles in order to keep him happy as Bond.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond is back!
Britinmiami18 November 2006
Bond is back! As a die hard Bond fan, all my expectations of Casino Royal and Daniel Craig's performance were fulfilled! Bond is back, younger, grittier, more vulnerable and oh so complex!

The film as you would expect is full of action and suspense and no one is going to give credit for that. The villains and thugs are as nasty as you can imagine and of course the famous locations are sumptuous. However, what makes this a compelling movie and not just another round of vodka martinis and a monkey suit, is Daniel Craig's amazing performance. As the story unravels, you see a metamorphosis of the character of Bond. You see him nervous, committing his first killing only to fast forward to Felix Leiter his American counterpart, who sees this and holds him back as he attempts to blow the whole plot by getting revenge as he attempts to knife Le Chiffre! Craig's vulnerability is counterbalanced by the exquisite Judy Dench. Dench adds weight and maturity that was often in the later films adorned by Bond himself. But here we have this matriarchal figure keeping her eye on Bond, and at times scorning him as if he was her only child. This beautifully crafted relationship is pivotal to the film and is brilliantly acted out.

This Bond is strong, handsome and athletic. He has the right balance of humor that was only evident during the Connery era. Latter Bonds tended to take this over the top and at times look rather campy. Craig is able to inject the right amount of joie de vivre and not lead us down the slippery slope of pantomime! Casino Royale has to be placed in the top 5 Bonds. A difficult achievement as it competes with a glut of other action film series that the earlier Bonds never had to worry about. Today Bond has to appeal to not just its loyal fans but to an up and coming movie crowd who expect more. The producers were right to recreate this phenomenon and bring Bond back to a place that has apparently connected with today's movie goer! That was evident by the audience participation. As the audience got up to leave, the Bond music played them out with a sense of wanting more.
Quite simply..........Bond is Back!!!!!!
craigsomerville4 March 2007
Went to see this twice at the cinema, and I'm eagerly awaiting the DVD release.

First of all Daniel Craig was a stunning James Bond and will continue to be one I'm quite sure. He was sophisticated, raw, intimidating, charismatic, charming etc etc etc..........Every thing a good Bond should be. Daniel is plainly a very talented actor and shows of his skills quite impressively in the movie.

The plot is OK, its certainly not the best of the Bonds in that respect. Direction and script are both well above par and the supporting cast all add substance to the movie, but this the Daniel Craig show.......

Similairly like Batman Begins, the producers and team behind this movie go back to the drawing board and start from scratch, and quite simply pull of as stunning a Bond movie as Batman Begins is to Batman movies.....The last couple of Bond movies have been OTT RUBBISH, no fault of Pierce Brosnan who in my opinion was a good Bond, but he was let down with rubbish plots, terrible scripts and too much GADGETS, something this movie does not have. The back to basics Bond is exactly what the franchise needed. Credit to all the people behind this movie, its a CRACKER. Sean Connery (by far the best Bond to date!) should watch out, after a couple more outings as the secret agent Daniel Craig might just be seen by many to be the "best ever Bond"....? 9/10- Except for an OK plot this movie is TOP drawer......
10/10
Fantastic adaption of Ian's Fleming's Novel
XAEEM19 November 2006
I was apprehensive about Daniel Craig's performance at first but this film proved me wrong. He lives James bond in this film. He's got the look, the style, the voice, the body and the moves. Craig plays a very rough James bond, vicious at times which is just what i was waiting for. The story itself is grounded in reality, not so many gadgets, more about the wits of the character and his intellect, the villain funds terrorism which is a topic currently in everyone's mind and this makes it more real. The supporting characters did exactly what they are, supporting the film, the main character, this film was about bond becoming bond and the final scene gives us what we were waiting for. A sharp but gritty James bond. some of the dialogues are a bit cheesy with the James bond girls but that can be overlooked. The girls are alright, Vesper Lynd's character is a very different bond girl from what we've been accustomed to. All in all, this film shows us why Bond becomes closed on himself and how and why he looses his soul and becomes this legendary spy/soldier. Well worth the watch in cinemas!!!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Exciting and well made... but not really a Bond film
barfly9918 November 2006
So Bond is back. Except this is Bond Year Zero. Bond Rebooted. Bond: The Beginning.

In this loose adaptation of Ian Fleming's 1953 novel - the first to feature James Bond - Daniel Craig stars as 007 just as he has gained 'Double-0' status by chalking up two kills (and we see the kills in oddly film noir style black-and-white). After a debut mission in Madagascar goes awry, Bond is assigned to play a high stakes poker game with terrorist financier Le Chiffre, knowing that winning the game will bankrupt Le Chiffre, and losing it will mean Her Majesty's government directly funding terrorism...

The bloody and breathless chase in Madagascar immediately informs us that this is not Bond as we've known him before, but a raw and uncompromising version. Craig doesn't even look remotely like any other Bond, with his dirty blonde hair, rugged features, and rippling, hairless muscles (which the film-makers' deem it necessary to show off at every opportunity). Emotionally he is completely different too. This Bond is not indestructible and cool under pressure, but volatile and vulnerable, even falling rather quickly in love with Eva Green's Vesper Lynd, who is sent to the Casino Royale with Bond to keep an eye on the money he is gambling.

The action is relentlessly exciting, with several brutal fist-fights, a truly spectacular car crash, and eventually a collapsing Venetian house. The performances are also universally very good. Judi Dench is rather incongruously brought back to play the morose M, Eva Green is an enigmatic Bond girl, and Mads Mikkelson does as much as he can with a thin role as Le Chiffre. As for Craig, he can definitely play the back-to-basics, street-fighting man this Bond is apparently supposed to be - certainly at least as well as you would have expected any other actor to have played him.

The trouble is that this film never really looks or feels like a Bond film. There is no Moneypenny, no Q, and there are no gadgets. The theme tune is entirely forgettable, and John Barry's famous Bond music is shunned until the final credits. Le Chiffre, an asthmatic banker, makes for a rather pathetic super-villain, and there are no colourful henchman for Bond to duel. Bond himself is dismissed by M as just a "thug" early in the film, and he proves her right throughout, with little charm or wit to complement his undoubted talent for beating people up without the slightest concern for civilians and innocent parties who get in the way. He doesn't even "give a damn" if his vodka martini is shaken or stirred.

In fact the film appears more closely modelled on the Jason Bourne franchise than previous Bond films. Whilst I appreciate the need to renew and reinvent 007, I question the need to rob from Bond almost every single ingredient that made him such a success in the first place. If we want a series of films about an MI6 hooligan that's fine, but why not create a new character altogether? Interestingly 007 does by the close of the film utter the famous words, "The name's Bond. James Bond." Perhaps this is to signify that this film is just an introduction to the all-new Bond, and that the panache will re-appear in future films.

In the meantime CASINO ROYALE makes for a thrilling preamble. But be warned that it doesn't have much more in common with the official 20 Bond movies that preceded it than the farcical 1967 adaptation with Peter Sellers and Woody Allen.
9/10
A new Bond!
fetboy18 November 2006
When you ask a man which Bond they identify themselves with, you will get a really good idea of what kind man they are by their answer. Finally we have a thinking man's James Bond. I wont compare Daniel Craig to the other Bond actors, because Daniel Craig's performance stands out as its own. He's charming without being charming, gentlemanly without being gentlemanly, and smart without being smart.

At first he comes off as a nerd by hacking computers, but quickly he becomes a beach god in the next segment, and yet he manages not to confuse the audience as to who he really is. He's the new Bond; gritty, calculating, sensitive, crafty, and not the least bit unrealistic, which are all traits that could also be said about the Movie "Casino Royale" as well.

Unlike other Bond films, especially the recent ones, "Casino Royale" doesn't rely on outlandish stunts to capture the audience's attention, but rather lets the story unfold. At no point did the actions of the characters need to be explained, and there wasn't a moment in which I wasn't riveted to see what was going to happen next.

When people ask me which Bond I identify with, I will tell them Daniel Craig, because he defined himself better than all the other Bonds did, and he didn't need big explosions to prove he was a hero.

My only complaints about the movie are that the last fight scene was a little hard to follow (but I loved the conclusion it came to), and the movie ends on a bit of question mark, which I hope means that the next Daniel Craig Bond film will start off where "Casino Royale" ends.

If they can follow up this master piece with another master piece Ian Fleming will be proud.
10/10
There can never be a better Bond episode.
bddaniel20 December 2019
It's inconceivable there could ever be a better Bond offering. Head and shoulders above the rest. Yes you can differentiate eras and Bond lead actors. But nowhere in this 2hr 24min does my interest weaken. The story and script is riveting. The seriousness and realism is unmatched. Bond is physically superb but also human and vulnerable. Later, Moneypenny is beautiful, intelligent and likeable, but that can never hold a candle to this relationship. Bond is largely defined by one and only one true romance. Bond emerges from this film with signature icy coldness. He has necessarily lost a dimension. We have lost an way to relate.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best Bond Movie because of Eva Green and Daniel Craig.
illidian-747579 April 2022
The reason I loved this movie cause of Bond's Humanity and Daniel Craig portrayed the character's vulnerability brilliantly.

The chemistry between 007 and Eva Green is powerful which makes this movie special. She wasn't any other forgettable bond girl ,She made everyone obsolete . The romance and tragedy makes this movie the all time greatest Bond movie in the history till date.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Realistic Bond,Outstading Daniel Craig
fightclub99-225 November 2006
I've seen all the James bond movies but i must say this one is the truly and most realistic out of them, besides that Daniel Craig is unbelievable and terrific inn-it.I just hope His James bond career last long as ever as he can do high more marks out of it. I loved also the scenery they used great places i must say, but in my modest opinion i believe Daniel Craig deserved a better looking Bond girl than Eva Green with no offense to her acting talent which is remarkable of good level but deserved a more sensual woman but in the end smart brain.to conclude i recommend this movie to everyone who like big and neutral emotions as the movie serves. LET'S JUST HOPE WILL BE ANOTHER BRILLIANT BOND MOVIE SOON.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Acting, dialogue make up for length and plot holes
goldangl9514 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The great things about this movie more than outweigh the bad: Daniel Craig (who I didn't find appealing before seeing the movie) did an excellent job of making his character sinister, brutal, but still appealing and charismatic.

Stylistic choices: i.e. black and white, harsh/realistic violence, realistic sexual content as well (err besides the white horse bit) Smart, fun dialogue.

However there is some bad:

1. Scenes go too long: Action scenes that could end...keep on going for another 3 or 4 minutes. Also repetitive (multiple strangulations, multiple exploding canisters, multiple running into vehicles for the EXACT same explosion). Also, to a lesser extent poker scenes seemed to drag (to the director's credit, this was probably chopped down as short as could be).

However! The Action quality/stunts are great. The parkour stuff in the beginning is crazy and shows amazing skill. Craig clearly did a lot of his own stunts and looks physically capable of what he is doing. I never got the "yeah right" feeling and was glued to the screen.

2. Scenes could be collapsed together. Instead we have 5 fade outs where the end should have happened...and doesn't. Why didn't bond & vesper just recover in Venice? With all the other plot holes no one would really question it.

However, when it finally ends? Totally worth it. One of the best conceived of endings I've seen in awhile (also, really good beginning sequences).

3. Romance got a little too upbeat...completely changed the tempo of the movie.

However, there were so many great other moments. When they first meet on the train, the shower scene, the ending action sequence....chemistry was great and believable. (no snickering in a majority male audience)

4. Plot holes. If a character has to give a monologue about what happened...you know something is wrong.

At least there was a believable plot concept. Some of the holes are clearly to be explained in later movies. However, others were inexcusable (Vesper's motivations ambiguous? Fine. The rest...not so much)

So if you haven't seen it already, go see it....it's entertaining, and I guarantee you won't feel like you've wasted your money.
8/10
Love MADS MIKKELSEN
casualobjection8 January 2021
Love everybody in this film. Hopefully good film.......
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pleasantly Surprised, but not convinced
slider-918 November 2006
When I first heard Daniel Craig had been cast in the role of Bond, I was convinced that the film was going to be awful. Having seen the film I have to say it wasn't as bad as I thought it might be.

The action sequences are very well done and Craig at times shines in the role. Where he fails is in the card scenes and those scenes which require sophistication.

The script is sharp and witty as one would expect from a Bond film, the quips are very well delivered and the scenes are well put together. One can forgive the obvious continuity error in having Judi Dench play 'M' in this film when it is supposed to be the story of how Bond became Bond and she was not appointed until Goldeneye.

While this has proved not to be the flop that many have predicted it would be, it is not however the definitive success that others may have hoped for it.

It definitely heralds a new era in Bond, and Craig may possibly have learnt enough from this film to be able to polish his rough edges should he decide to continue in the role.

All in all, it was enjoyable though at the end of the day it, despite all that was good in it, it lacked that certain something that marks out Bond films. Were it not marketed as a Bond film, it would pass as a very good action thriller film.
7/10
The first non "Bond", "Bond" film.
Littlebitsofgaming25 February 2007
I'm a HUGE Bond fan, I am so much of a fan I even like Moonraker. (yes that is how much of a fan I really am.) I love the franchise, I enjoy all the films and I went into this film with a closed "Bond" mind.

What we have here is not just another "Bond" film with a new Bond...we have an all new start to the franchise. This film ignores all those other "Bond" films, this is neither a sequel nor prequel (think Batman Begins). So the producers had a hell of a film to pull off, just introducing a new actor as Bond is tough enough...but to pretty much deconstruct and then rebuild the franchise up to this point is even harder. And this is where the problem lies with this film...it's not a "Bond" film...it's a "James Bond" film. Which is where the split comes in with the questions and opinions of "Bond" fans. As I said before, I went to see this with a closed mind. I was expecting another "Bond" film, I was waiting for Q to hand out the gadgets, see the rockets pop out of the Aston Martin, etc and the first time I did see this I left the cinema feeling "robbed". It's not that I did not like the film...I just missed it's point. And I feel this is the problem with many of the negative reviews of this film. They are mistaking if for a "Bond" film...and it is not.

Anyway I decided to recently give this film another go. This time I understood the film and it's concept. It really is best to NOT compare this to the previous "Bond" films. This has more in common with the Matt Damon "Bourne" series than "Bond". Second viewing of this film...and I REALLY enjoyed it. Now it's not a masterpiece of film-making...but it sure is fun. Removing the whole James Bond character for just a second...it's a great little action/adventure film with just the right amount of "realism" included. It's a good re-intro to James Bond. We even get to see James make mistakes..well this is his first 00 mission. It was great to see a previously flawless character have flaws, it made Bond seem more "human". As for the new "Bond", I personally was not won over. Craig did a good enough job and he is the best of the NEW Bond franchise so far (well he is the ONLY of the new Bond franchise so far), but I do not think he was the best man for the job. But still, he was believable as James Bond and that is good enough for me.

It really is best to leave the old "Bond" mindset at the door if you go to see this film. Go to see it as an all new film...not a new "Bond" film. This is not "Bond 21", this is "James Bond 1" After this second viewing of the film...I can't wait for "Cansio Royale 2" (which is supposedly already written and is to pick up where this film left off). I hope they continue this trend of the films being linked and do not divert back into the old "Bond" setup of just a new adventure each time. It's a fresh approach to a tried and tested franchise, and I for one (now) welcome the idea.

Leave the old Bond series where it is, this is the all new James Bond franchise. Just unplug from the previous Bonds and do not compare them. See this film for what it is.

Bond is not back, he is reborn...and I like it.
10/10
Casino Royale: The Greatest Bond Ever!
hentschellm20 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale

Wow! That is all I can say is wow. They took a series that was having the worst time ever and brought it back better than it has ever been before. Since Goldeneye, the Bond series had been horrible making lousy movies with lousy stories, an infallible main character who relied on implausible gadgets instead of his skills. This movie changed that.

Plot: This movie restarts the James Bond series and brings it up to modern times. The plot is that James Bond must win a poker tournament to keep a man from funding world terrorism. It is a fantastic plot based on the classic starter by Ian Fleming showing how Bond became a double agent.

Acting: No one has ever surpassed Sean Connery as James Bond...Until Now. Daniel Craig is the ultimate James Bond matching the original Ian Fleming character more than any other actor who has ever played 007. He may have even deserved a nomination for his role. He wasn't the only one who was good but he was definitely the best. Eva Green also gave an unusually good performance as a Bond Girl, which doesn't usually happen, while looking really good at the same time. Mads Mikkelsen gives a very chilling performance as the poker player Le Chiffre. Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis also gives a good performance.

Genre/Quality: Following Die Hard, this is one of the greatest action movies I've ever seen. It is one of the only action movies that comes close to matching Die Hard's greatness. Fans of action will not be disappointed. Like any other movie this movie has flaws and mistakes. However, the only one that really sticks out is its length. You're always thinking that it is almost over but it keeps going. However this doesn't take to much away. Making new variations of the Bond theme keeps the music alive however. Also, they make a new and more believable Bond who makes a lot of mistakes which makes this more enjoyable and more of a realistic action movie instead of a borderline sci-fi film. There are also no fancy gadgets which I welcomed. This is because in the last few Bond movies he always used his gadgets rather than his skill. This movie he used skill.

Wow again! We finally found someone who surpasses Connery's greatness. After 30 years of questioning if anyone will be better we will now question will anyone be better than Daniel Craig. With strong story, fantastic acting, lots of action (for action freaks) and a very well made movie this is an action movie second only to Die Hard.

9/10
10/10
this movie was worth for ticket money
olts617 November 2006
until yesterday in my opinion the best Bond movie was Goldeneye, that was also directed by Campbell. So i expected that Casino Royale would be more than average Bond-movie. I was right. Bond character has been "refreshed". Graig does his work very well and you will find out that he is right man to play Bond. In my opinion he is better Bond than Brosnan. The acting and action is excellent. The story is good,enjoyable and realistic, not like some earlier Bond-movie where was too much science-fiction (invisible car, moon rocket or high-tech satellites). In this movie Bond grows up, he learns form his mistakes and he realize what 00 means. The new Bond has born. The movie is also with some humor. Bond says to woman:"You are not my type" Woman: "Too Smart?" Bond:"Single". This movie was worth for every cent that i paid for the ticket.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Let Down By The Ending
marlyly4 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the first Bond film I've ever seen (to be honest, the idea of a womanising assassin in a load of action flicks aimed mainly at guys has just never appealed to me) but after hearing all the brilliant reviews about Casino Royale I thought it was about time I gave in and took the plunge into my first Bond film. I wasn't disappointed! You'd have to have been on another planet the last couple of years to have not heard all the criticism Daniel Craig has had in this part - I hadn't even seen the film yet I could recite all the faults - 'He's too ugly to play Bond', 'He's too old', 'He's just awful!' so you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was to find that not only did Daniel Craig not resemble a troll (as some haters would have you believe) and definitely was not too old to be believable in the role, but that his acting was also top notch. As I've said, this is the first Bond film so I can't compare Craig to the other actors who've portrayed Bond, but I felt like he did a fine job with the script he had and have no reason to complain. Likewise, I really liked Judi Dench as M, and though Mads Mikkelsen played a very good villain in Le Chiffre, but Eva Green didn't really bring anything to the character Vesper apart from perhaps looking the part.

My complaints of this film have to be a) the script (the romantic lines between Vesper and Bond in the last 40 minutes or so are cringe-worthy) and b) the ending, though I've heard it's less cheesy than most bond films. I guess it's the only ending they could have to keep true to Bond and the previous films, which is a shame because it takes this film down from a 5 star rating to a 4 in my eyes. But there is plenty in this film to make up for it's few faults. I felt that all the Casino royale scenes were done brilliantly, script, acting, + direction, and, as a little side note, I also love the main song for this film, Chris Cornell's 'You Know My Name'. Take a chance on this film, especially if you've never seen a Bond film before. You might be pleasantly surprised!
10/10
"I'm sorry. That last hand... nearly killed me."
DapperDuck71320 February 2020
After "Die Another Day" received a negative reception due to its over-the-top story and camp aesthetic, the James Bond franchise went on a four year exile to soul search and discover what it wanted to become.

"Casino Royale" was the heart-pounding and ferocious return to form that the forty-four year-old series needed. Dispensing with the cartoon-level gadgets and ridiculous villains, this film would strip Bond back down to his roots. This wasn't only going to be one of the best Bond outings ever conceived but also one of the most riveting and visceral action blockbusters of the 21st century!

The best place to start this review is with Bond, James Bond, played so excellently by Daniel Craig. Whilst I am a huge fan of Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery's portrayals of 007 respectively, Craig is, in my opinion, the best Bond yet. In the spectacular opening sequence alone he proved all of the "No Blond Bond" naysayer's wrong, but also brought more humanity, depth and dry wit to the table than most other Bond's contribute in their entire multi-film run.

When I judge a Bond, I gauge them on two factors: One- "Are they suave enough?" and Two-"Do they look capable of killing people?" Unsurprisingly, Daniel Craig leapt over these metaphorical hurdles effortlessly, he is both unbelievably charming and sophisticated and delivers the brilliant one-liners with apparent ease. Craig's Bond also acts as human tank, barrelling from one outstanding action set-piece to the next with brutal efficiency.

An aspect of this incarnation of 007 that I thoroughly appreciate is that unlike his predecessors, he doesn't annihilate henchmen without breaking a sweat. In the same vain as "Indiana Jones", this Bond is pushed to his limits as he struggles to defeat his enemies. This desperation makes 007 so much more relatable and engrossing as he isn't a superhero, he's just a man. This vulnerability is best emphasised during a near-silent scene in which Bond washes blood off himself, dulling the pain with alcohol and gazing into a mirror. This scene tells the audience so much about Bond and his psyche without Craig saying a word.

Another shining example of the sheer prestige of "Casino Royale" is how it handles its Bond Girl, Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green. Whereas most Bond Girls (with a few exceptions) are treated as 2-dimensional caricatures, Vesper is written as a real person. Her banter with Bond is great as, unlike nearly every woman in his life (except M, portrayed by the ever excellent Dame Judi Dench), Vesper sees through Bond's confident mask and understands who he really is, which makes her his true equal. Unlike some Bond movies that beat the audience over the head with how important a woman is to Bond, but without developing the two characters relationship (*cough* "SPECTRE"), "Casino Royale" crafts superb dialogue that entertains us whilst also evolving both Bond and Vesper.

A key aspect to every great Bond film is its villain; Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Le Chiffre easily makes him one of my favourite Bond antagonists. He doesn't stroke a white cat, reside in a mountain-top lair or kill his henchmen unnecessarily, Le Chiffre feels more like a real person, or as real as a person who weeps blood can be.

The action sequences in "Casino Royale" are absolutely jaw-dropping. Martin Campbell, who incidentally directed another of my favourite Bond movies, "Goldeneye" (and "Green Lantern" but we don't talk about that one), masterfully directed this film. Even though "Casino Royale" is an obvious response to the gritty realism of the "Jason Bourne" series, none of Bourne's trademark (and sickening) Shaky-Cam is to be found here; every set-piece is filmed in a clear and fluid way so that we can actually follow and understand what's happening. The highlight of the film is the phenomenal construction-site parkour chase, featuring some of the best moments in the entire film that perfectly establish this version of 007, ( such as the moment when, instead of leaping through a hole in a plaster wall, Bond smashes straight through it.) All of the other sequences are flawless, from a particularly nerve-wracking truck battle (that pays homage to "Raiders of the Lost Ark") to the brutal stairwell fight and emotional finale.

Something else that makes "Casino Royale" a masterwork is the powerful pre-title sequence. I love that the film reissues the iconic gun barrel sequence to take place in the bathroom brawl. The monochrome style and suspenseful direction tie-in perfectly with the events of the scene (Bond making his second kill and gaining his 00' status and Licence to Kill), and offer a dramatic and visually striking sequence that is totally unique to the Bond franchise.

The film's title sequence is one of the best in Bond history. The animation and graphics are so awesome; the playing card theme is used so effectively to create the most artful and print-worthy title sequence in the series. It doesn't hurt that Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name" is a stellar entry into the Bond song canon and brilliantly ties into the more aggressive style of this film.

And last but definitely not least, the closing minute of "Casino Royale" is my absolute favourite moment in the 007 franchise and the best use of the line "Bond, James Bond." This moment is incredibly satisfying because, up until this point, "Casino Royale" has been about Bond becoming the character that we know and love, so finally hearing the magnificent James Bond theme blast through the air is a moment that never fails to give me goose-bumps!

In conclusion, "Casino Royale" is a stellar spy-action thriller. It's intense, funny, sleek and edgy! It's a fantastic reboot, accessible for both long-time fans and newcomers alike.
7/10
Not a Bond movie
luisro7611 December 2006
This new production may be a good action movie, but it is far from being a James Bond movie. You will miss all the gadgets and sophistication of the classic movies and in exchange you will get muscle and the agility of Daniel Craig. The beautiful women and fast cars are there, but the main character could easily be Jason Bourne. There is a clear intention to renew the series, but they are sacrificing the main characteristics of the classic James Bond character to do so. We all know the terrible story about the first movie called "Casino Royale" with Peter Sellers, with that in mind this is a master piece. By now the production seems to be doing good in the box office, let's just hope they correct their way in the next movie.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good movie, but sadly a slightly disappointing end!
hazh13 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is a fun action packed movie. Daniel Craig who plays the new bond does some excellent acting, although i should say i have always been a fan of Craig. The movie starts of simple its about the new bond agent who has to track down a man who is investing money into terrorism... seems simple but its not.

Later in the film problems start to arouse and bonds personality begins to become somewhat slightly annoying. The introduction of the Eva Green brings the movie back to senses but the ending appears very quirky and timid. Overall its a good movie but the ending seems to spoil the movie!!!
10/10
Awesome!
hankhanks1234513 March 2007
"Casino Royale," as some of the others have been saying, is one of the best Bond films in ages. I personally felt that the last few Brosnan outings just got too fluffy and silly to be enjoyable.

Now, to be fair, every Bond movie has had outrageous stunts and over-the-top moments. But it's like a soufflé: If you get it to rise just the perfect amount, it's great. But just a bit too much, and it doesn't go down so easy. The last few Bonds have been like a flat soufflé, whereas this one got it just right.

I should also mention that not only will this film please Bond fans, but it's exciting enough to please someone who has never seen a James Bond movie before, and just wants a great action/suspense movie.

The chase scene in the construction site was a particularly enjoyable sequence.
Not to be missed
claudiodebei22 November 2020
Perhaps the best 007 movie that i have never seen. Daniel Craig play the role of James Bond with charm and phisicity. Story is a good balance of action and spy
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Second Best Bond Ever To: OHMSS
CatoTSR28 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is the big one, out come all the Barrack Room hacks. Here we go!Possibly the second best Bond Film of all time, depicting the prequel/pro-log of the infamous, wet and dry disposal expert on behalf of Her Majesty. The casting of Dan Craig was spot on no doubts here,as the man delivering the box of chocolates, after disposing all the usual wannabe delivery boys. Great story from Fleming possibly one of his best, based on a number of various alleged war time tales of experience. The casting and storyline was fluent and cohesive, to the point of total originality. I am unsure on the "Vesper Lynd" depiction, but after watching the movie on my 10th outing, I think I get the message. One sad point for me personally was the film score, which was its only issue. The opening title theme was a very good piece of work, which was slightly spoilt to the fact that the composer should have let someone else perform it. Admittedly they themselves are an allegedly world acclaimed vocalist and writer. The opening title credits were the best in Bond cinematic history: Great storyline. A little bit of useless information, which will have astrologers jumping for joy. The other great Bond new boy with a similar story line was George Lazenby "Virgo" Sun sign. Opposite polarity to Daniel Craig "Pisces" (The best by the way, I'm one too!)David Niven Casino Royale Bond spoof was a "Pisces". Eva Green "Cancer" Ideal paring for and match for a Piscean in Synastry: Someone got it right doing their homework, or did the Cards just give them a "Straight Flush".
The name is blond. James Blond.
Mxzplk21 December 2006
Aggressive, bulky and almost ugly, Daniel Craig doesn't correspond to what people expect of 007. And that is great. Yes, he is blond and has ears like fan, but can take care of the job.

Since Tim Burton elected Michael Keaton to be his Batman it wasn't seem so much bile spilling due to a choice of an actor for a specific role. Announced by the producer Barbara Broccoli, in October of 2005, as the sixth James Bond, the English Daniel Craig went through the five months of filming under a hail of criticism and ridicule, orchestrated by the extremely ferocious British tabloids and by the fan blogs on the internet. Craig is blond, while Bond is dark-haired; with 1,80m, it is too short for the role (his predecessors stayed between 1,85m and 1,89m); has fan ears, his face is squared and flattened, and he is not beautiful enough; his dramatic credits are disproportionate to the character, like Timothy Dalton, the most annoying of the Bonds. And mainly, it was said, Craig lacks the smoothness - the primordial attribute of the spy, as defined by the books of 0writer Ian Flemming and the 20 previous movies of the series. All truth. And you can't say that everything is absolutely irrelevant because, as the film itself demonstrates, these supposedly defects of Craig are, in great measure, the triumphs of this new incarnation of the secret agent.

Written in 1953, Cassino Royale is the book which Ian Fleming introduced 007. Until today, it was filmed only once, as a parody, with Peter Sellers in the role of the spy. When Barbara Broccoli (that inherited the series of her father, the legendary Albert "Cubby" Broccoli) conquered the rights of the tittle in 2001, after a long judicial fight, decided that it was the ideal opportunity to reformulate the character. Pierce Brosnan was filming his fourth and last adventure in the role of the agent and, even so, 007 A New Day To Die was about to become the biggest commercial success of the series, it was already giving unequivocal signs of exhaustion. A market research done a bit earlier revealed that, between the franchises of action and adventure, the one of 007 was the one that least attracted the younger audience, and the popularity of the games based on it wasn't going to revert the statistics on its own. Besides all, there was a need to shake up the creative fatigue that came attacking the character. Where, after two years of searches and tests with two hundreds actors in three continents, it got to the aggressive and bulky Daniel Craig, that starts the movie earning his license to kill and, subsequently, being surprised to the pleasure that it provides. James Bond, here, doesn't lack the intimacy with the subtleties of international espionage. He just doesn't know it yet.

His hunt for the villain Le Chiffre ("The Enigma"), banker of terrorists and freedom fighters all over the world, will work as an intensive course on the subject - as well as his extracurricular activities with Vesper Lynd (Eva Green, of Kingdom of Heaven), in charge by the British Intelligence to sign, or not, the checks that 007 leaves where he passes by. "I am the money" presents Vesper to the spy. "Worth every penny", replies Bond with a greedy eye, in one of those double entenders that are his signature. It won't be this, however, the tone of Cassino Royale, that also dismisses his special devices, reduces the contingent of voluptuous women and runs with pleasure over items that used to be considered necessary. This new Bond doesn't give a crap over the trifling details of a dry martini and is not rare that he prefers to use his fists over the Walther pistol (not any other 007, by the way, spilled as much blood as Craig). Also the villain he fights has no plans of world domination - his business, more convincing, is the profit - and even Vesper can't be appropriately considered a Bondgirl, since Eva Green have too much class and not enough curves to fit the pattern. From the explosive scenes of action to the sequences of seduction, what Bond reveals here is a predatory nature that Sean Connery, the canonic 007, could only suggest at his time. For the first time the franchise approaches a latent question of the character: what kind of man is this that, with or without license to kill, lives to murder? The answer to this questions goes for the next episodes - and it is hard to think of a better hook than this for a Cassino Royale sequel.
10/10
Best Bond movie of all time
dimitrijemilosevic3 January 2022
This is probably my 3rd or 4th time watching this movie. I remember that i always had a lot of nitpicks with it and i never fully understood the story or at least all the minor things in it. Perhaps that was because first time i watched it i was in elementary school, and second time i was in high school. I guess i just wanted to see some cool action back then, and while i liked the movie, it was never more than 8/10 at best in my head.

Last time i saw it couple of years ago, and i remember appreciating it a little bit more but still didn't fully understand the plot and i also had some problems with how disconnected the story felt. I was under the impression that i watched 3 episodes of the tv series instead of 3 act structure movie. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it bothered me. Probably because i didn't fully connect the strings of the events in each act. Still, i noticed other good things, so my rating improved to 9/10, and it stayed like that for some time, until last night.

Well, last night i saw it again. I was concentrated and prepared to pay attention to every bit of detail, dialogue and frame in the movie. I was ready to absorb every single thing on the screen, and it all clicked together. Now I can freely say that this is almost a perfect movie, definitely 10/10, and for sure the best Bond movie of all time. Furthermore, i think this is one of the best action movies of all time, and one of the best movies of all time, period.

Basically, by this point in time, every scene in this movie is iconic. Every person who saw this movie knows 1. Black and white sequence 2. Chase sequence, 3. Beach scene 4. Train scene, 5. Warehouse scene, 6. Shower scene, and i can go on and on.

Acting is perfect, what can i say there. Daniel Craig as James Bond, despite not being match for Bond in terms of looks, according to Ian Fleming's novels at least, is perfect in every other way. Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, my god, best ''Bond-Girl'' of all time, period. Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre - one of the best Bond-Villains of all time for sure. Supporting cast is also amazing - Judi Dench as M, Giancarlo Giannini as Rene, Jeffrey Wright as Felix, and all the other actors are equally convincing and memorable.

The writing is amazing. Not only the complex well developed story, branched through many characters and events all over the world, representing the magnitude of affairs that take place, but also the gritty, realistic, down-to-earth version of James Bond himself. Depth of the characters, the character development, the emotions that you can see and feel, the fact that you can relate to all of the ''main characters'' and understand where they come from and why they do what they do. There is no good and evil, black and white, every character is gray and complex in its own way.

Dialogue, of course, if one movie has memorable dialogues it's this movie. Both in terms of banter and comedy, or just pure depth, the dialogue is golden. Every conversation is satisfying, meaningful, carries some weight and has a purpose for the characters involved in it.

The practical effects, real stunts, filming on beautiful locations without green screen, are some of many other things that go in favor of this movie.

I still have some small nitpicks with it, some small things that i think director could've done better, but nothing that is downright bad per se, and for sure nothing bad enough for me to not recognize this movie as a masterpiece that it is and its significance and value in cinema history.
9/10
Now this is more like it.
tyler-philco29 April 2008
I never was a fan of the Pierce Brosnan bonds. This movie was awesome. Much more down to earth, I like how it wasn't non-stop and the plot was tied around him in the poker game. Gave the movie more tension instead of adrenaline. A good balance of both in this film. Another thing better in comparison to the last Bond films is our hero is not invincible. Oh, and he doesn't have to have sex with everyone he meets. It's also cool to see a hero that actually takes the time to work out, unlike our last Bond films. Daniel Craig did a wonderful job in this film. Plot was a lot more interesting, being tied around a game of poker. In this film Bond felt a lot more believable. He adapted, sometimes things didn't work out right and he was able to over come it but not perfectly. Where as in previous films Bond has been an unstoppable force that feels staged. So, I give this a 9 out of 10, because it actually left me wanting more.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A darker shade of Bond
PortugalOle717 November 2006
This was the first 007 film I have seen in the theater since Goldeneye, ironically enough also directed by Martin Campbell. I have since seen Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough on DVD. It felt like the stories were getting a little bit goofy and pre-packaged. I did like Bronsnan's Bond and was a little bit skeptical about Daniel Craig as the new leading man. I was very mistaken.

Daniel Craig gives Bond a very different and interesting personality. He's more of a hard-ass in truth. He's a little more angry and viscous in this latest installment. Something that gives the film a little spice. The trademark one-liners are still there and James is still the ladies-man but Casino Royale definitely has a darker feel.

The story places Bond at the start of his MI6 career, newly promoted to his double-00 status. A dangerous path leads him to be involved in playing a high-stakes poker tournament against a man who is a banker to some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. Bond of course needs significant funds to play at this table and to make sure he doesn't blow it all Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green, is there to oversee the operation.

In the end Casino Royale is a refreshing spin on Bond. The film is dark and the violence is a bit more graphic that one is used to in a 007 film, particularly a brutal torture scene. Bond actually gets some cuts and blood on his face! I just hope the next installment gets the same treatment.
8/10
A Worthy Entry
colinbarnard-117 November 2006
I am going to try to write this impression without gushing: if any of you have read the other comments in this IMDb series, you may have had too much of the gushing already. However, suffice it to say that this is a fine film; a fine JAMES BOND film, too.

Bond 21 has to be compared with its 20 progenitors. And then it gets compared to other films. It is original and derivative of both categories.

Daniel Craig: yes, he is a fine Bond. A friend of mine commented decades ago that Bond has to be portrayed as slightly cruel, and Daniel Craig certainly communicates that his Bond enjoys dispatching those worthy of death.

Many of the other commentators to IMDb have cited OHMSS as the only other Bond film where character development was given a place at the table. I couldn't agree more. So, you detractors of George Lazenby remember that he was given the job of humanizing Bond, as has Mr. Craig.

I do get a little tired of the series always trying to keep this "ageless" hero rooted in the contemporary era. This Bond, we are led to believe, gets his first mission in 2006, as the bloody Sony-Erikson cell phones keep reminding us. So much for series continuity...

Those who cite Mr. Craig's acting chops should remember that a trained chimp could mouth the small number of lines give to any 007 in any of the films. These are action films, where the acting is secondary to the set pieces, even in this gritty film. But Craig brings his tools to the shop for display.

This is first Bond film to focus more on male beefcake than female skin. Is this a chick flick? Watch for a brief cameo from Richard Branson at an airport where the Virgin Atlantic livery is on display. Note that the editor is one Stuart Baird, the director who put the final (?) nail in the coffin of the Star Trek franchise with Nemesis.

Ms. Brocolli, and Mr. Wilson: keep up the character development with Bond 22. Given that most people would like to know James Bond, it's nice that Casino Royale gives us a good introduction.
9/10
Bond's back with a bang.
james.p.taylor17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film has been called a reboot of the series, taking Bond back to the start so the franchise can try to rebuild after the mixed feelings and reviews of Die Another Day. It works.

The pre-title sequence shows the two kills Bond (Daniel Craig) makes in order to earn his '00' rating. One is a down and dirty hand-to-hand fight in a gents toilet and the other, the more cerebral, thinking man's set piece that has become a Bond trademark.

After this is a new style of opening title. My initial reaction was to hate it, but as the (relatively) short sequence gets running I started to enjoy the novel visual style it uses. It won't be to everyone's taste however.

On his first mission things start to go seriously wrong. After being tasked to track down and bring in a bomber for hire his mission is compromised. This leads to a vertigo inducing chase up and then down two half-built buildings. Cue explosions and gunfire aplenty. When he finally catches up with his quarry Bond has to break into an embassy to bring the man down. Caught on camera doing the job he finds after his escape he's now earned the displeasure of his boss M (Judi Dench).

After being told to vanish for a while for things to blow over Bond follows a lead to Nassau. Here he comes across Alex Dimitrios (Simon Abkarian), an arms dealer with shady connections around the world. Falling for Dimitrios's wife Solange (Caterina Murino), Bond tries to find out who's behind these men. Again the mission goes badly leaving Solange and Dimitrios dead.

While following the leads Bond manages to prevent an attack in Miami. Back in favour, although only just, M brings him in and informs him of a link between the Dimitrios and a terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). Bond's foiling of the attack in Miami has cost him dearly and in order to get his money back Le Chiffre has had to enter a high stakes poker game at The Casino Royale. The Government, through Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) are going to back the best card player in the service in order to bankrupt Le Chiffre.

I won't spoil the rest of the plot.

This film starts high action and, apart from a few sections, maintains the pace. It has all the things that Bond films should have, the fantastic locations, the beautiful girls, the ridiculously expensive cars, the action. From the stunning building chase to a too brief car chase, the action scenes deliver. But, even better than these are the tense face offs over the card table. Poker is the real action here. the battle of wits between Bond and Le Chiffre is great. There are breaks from the table in which there are even more fights and a heart stopping moment for the main man.

The acting is well done. What you see for the first time is Bond change and grow through the film. Here he gets angry and lashes out. He blows missions spectacularly and somehow manages to pull things around. The man you see at the end if changed from the man you see at the start. Craig is, if not the best, then soon will be the best Bond.

The supporting cast is good. Eva Green is stunning. Her acting is really good, especially in the vulnerable moments she has. There's nowhere this is shown better than at the casino where Bond has dispatched some third world thugs with Lynd right there with him. Finding her distraught in the shower moments later there is one of the most tender scenes in any Bond film so far.

I loved the film. Why it got 9/10 was for two things: length and the appalling product placement that went on. There are few films that merit a run of over two hours and this isn't one. Twenty minutes could have easily been shaved off and still left it great.

Go and see the film as soon as you can. For real fans or first timers it's a treat.
9/10
My name is Craig...
raphael881 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Everybody was talking about the new James Bond for several months. First, everybody was saying that Daniel Craig wasn't the right guy to embody the secret agent of Her Gracious Majesty. When the movie came out, everybody said that it was great. So, I was impatient to see with my own eyes whether it was good or not. And I wasn't disappointed.

007 has made a really great coming back in the person of Daniel Craig ! A very good movie, a so beautiful James Bond girl (Eva Green) and a fantastic opening music ("You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell). As far as the new James Bond actor is concerned, it's rather a good choice. Craig is a more cold and cruel Bond with a bit less class than Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan but with more presence than Roger Moore. And as you can see in the movie, this Bond isn't only cold and cruel...

However, I do regret the absence of Moneypenny ! She wasn't fired, was she ?

So, this new James Bond is a really good one even if, according to me, Sean Connery was the best one, followed by Pierce Brosnan.
10/10
Improved by a Second Look
grandpagbm3 November 2008
I saw this movie in the theater, when it was released, and I really didn't care for it. I knew that much of my reaction was because I was unhappy with how significantly they had changed the Bond mystic this time around. I was always a fan of James Bond films, from the first to the last one before this. Although the 007 persona changed from time to time over the years, partially to keep him up with the changing times, he was still the same basic recognizable character. But, in this movie, the only anchor to the past was Judi Dench playing the character M. There was not even a Q in this movie, and I was unhappy about that. I had looked forward to seeing John Cleese playing Q in more Bond films. Also, this film had too many twists to try to follow. And, like many Bond fans, I didn't know who Daniel Craig was and didn't care for his very different presentation of 007. Most confusing was the fact that the story was completely out of the time line for the series. In the movie, this is Bond's first assignment as a 00 agent, which would place it before Dr. No in story chronology. Yet, it was set in today's time. This was very disconcerting.

After watching the movie on DVD, almost two years later, I have a different feeling about it. I now accept the changes (especially after watching the special features DVD that was included in the movie set). I also paid close attention to Craig's acting and found that I do like his style. He was an excellent 007. Something I noticed this time is that Craig looks and acts very much like Steve McQueen, a favorite action film actor of mine from decades ago. Now, I place this Bond film as one of the better ones in the series. I will enjoy watching it often.
9/10
Best Bond
PythonMonty18 November 2006
I've seen a variety of the bond films and they all bored me. I mean, they were fun, Bond was always cool and charming, but the plot and villain lost me.

Casino Royale?

Totally different ballgame.

It was edgy, ruthless, real, kick-ass, and the plot never lost you. It worked on more than "just a Bond" flick, it could have been any spy or action movie, the dialogue, story and characters were exciting and interesting, It seems more like Bourne Identity than Die Another Day. It was the first Bond movie I went to that the audience was so reactive, laughing at all the jokes, cringing at the gruesome moments, and throwing their fists in the air at the down-right awesomness of it all!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst 007 Film
austen-petty2 January 2015
Totally crap film worst out of 23. Nothing like the old ones, they just ruined it. By submitting this review you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your review will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Reviews that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is the best Bond, the best Bond movie (mild spoilers)
LaDonnaKeskes4 December 2006
Clean and dry like a martini, kinetic and almost balletic in the action sequences, cleverly subversive of the Bond conventions. And Daniel Craig is quite simply the most gorgeous vessel of testosterone in quite some time. He's the perfect counterpart to dark-and-sunny George Clooney: a bright blue-eyed blond with a lemon-bitter edge.

An excellent script that isn't burdened with clever deaths and post mortem puns. There are no bizarre weather-changing devices or fantastical enemies to overcome, so you don't have to suspend disbelief to the heavens. You don't even have to know all the players or unravel the plot to enjoy it. It unfolds in its own time and quite efficiently. The cinematography and art direction, especially the classic opening sequence, are worth repeated viewing. A beautiful film to watch, all that blue ocean and Craig's eyes.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Loved the new direction
kirktoons16 November 2007
I just grew up into the Bond franchise as a consumer of uncomplicated movie goods. I loved Ian Fleming's novels and when they became movies, I couldn't do anything else but follow the trend.

I grew up loving the concept of James Bond. When I was about 10, my grand old dad even bought me a 007 attaché case for Xmas, complete with a booby trap, handle-activated assassination gun, hidden dagger, infrared visiting cards, etc...

The Bond flicks evolved into a fantasy sub genre that didn't mean much but was pleasing all around, somewhat like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on 90 proof vodka.

Now the Broccoli Lady wants to get down to business. All of a sudden, Fleming's scribblings are scripture. Bond bleeds. James Bond actually WORKS for a living. As far as I'm concerned, it worked.

I loved every second of Casino Royale and, even though the Bentley's reanimating unit was a terrible bit of Deus ex Machina, the movie worked!

I also like the idea of James Bond looking like Vladimir Putin, but just a bit uglier, more brutish (brutish, not British).

Can't wait to see how Bond will get skewered next...
9/10
One of the Best
RustyDD78821 November 2006
I never thought I'd see a Bond movie as good or better than Dr. No with Sean Connery. Casino Royal came right up to it and maybe even better. Good acting, not overloaded with special effects but enough to keep your attention. My wife who is not really a Bond fan,(she fell asleep during one), enjoyed the movie and thought it was great. I enjoyed the scenes, going from country to country was like a small vacation to places most of us do not get to very often. Bond was his best yet, without giving away anything let me say you will be surprised at his performance. Surprised to see m was a woman in this version of 007, we are used to a man in that role. I read my first Bond novel in 1964 and have been a fan since, looking forward to the next film and hope to see the same cast or at least one as good.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Best Bond Movie.
ninjagaiden0075 January 2007
Chomp, chomp, (choke), gulp. That's the sound of a good many 007-watchers, myself included, who spent the last two years or so moaning about Daniel Craig's casting as "the first blond Bond' eating our words. While I'm still rooting for Clive Owen to take his turn in a few years once the Craig/ Broccoli connection inevitably dries up, I've seldom been so happy to be wrong: Craig gives Bond a rawness and intensity that, for all of Pierce Brosnan's undeniable charm in the role, has been missing ever since the vastly underrated Timothy Dalton strapped on the Walther PPK for two money-losing late 80s installments. Craig makes Martin Campbell's fully honorable attempt to rebuild Bond from the ground up an unqualified success; if you sat through The Sum of All Fears, the disastrous 2002 attempt to redefine Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan as a single Ben Affleck rather than a married-with-children Harrison Ford, you know what a dicey endeavor that reinventing an established character can be. Amazingly, Casino Royale, like Peter Jackson's brilliant do-over of King Kong from a year before, manages the heady task of both honoring its predecessors and correcting their mistakes: after Goldfinger in 1965, most of the Bond films--good, bad or indifferent--have been as ritualistic as Japanese kabuki theater (28 minutes into the flick? OK, time for the obligatory repartee with Moneypenney!) and have been, even at their best, relentlessly bloodless enterprises in both senses of the word. Over a quarter of a decade ago, Steven Spielberg pitched Indiana Jones to George Lucas by describing everyone's favorite fighting archaeologist as "better than Bond"; the result was three films that were "must-see movie-going" rather than the "it's-there-and-it's-the-latest-so-what-the-heck" that such mediocre, by-the-numbers efforts as The Man With the Golden Gun and Moonraker had relegated the 007 films to being. Indy was no superhero...he was vulnerable, and felt pain, and Casino Royale's genius is that its Bond is still learning, makes BIG mistakes, and actually bleeds. (And bleeds, and bleeds. Make no mistake, parents, this isn't a PG-13 film at all but a hard R. If you haven't seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, whose thesis is that the MPAA is far more lenient toward big studio efforts than small independent movies, this will convince you.) Eva Green is hands down THE best Bond girl of all time precisely because she's not a girl at all but a real woman... intelligent, multidimensional and able to give Bond as good as she gets, and I loved how this film, while remaining in the present day and being firmly rooted in the War on Terror rather than the Cold War, works as Bond's "origin story", explaining everything from his casual/ cruel attitude toward women (007 somehow qualifies as both the honorary president of the Playboy Club AND the He-Man Women-Haters Club) to his special fondness for Aston-Martins to even where the film series' famous "bloody iris" trademark comes from. (And the movie answers a few relevant fan questions, too. If you ever wondered whether Judi Dench's M has any kind of personal life, you'll find out...if you look closely.) Nearly everything works, including the risky Texas hold-em poker sequence that takes up a substantial part of the running time, but for many the most memorable sequence will be Bond's torture scene, which recalls memories of Goldfinger's legendary "laser bit" but turns up the intensity; if men in the earlier movie's audience crossed their legs in discomfort, they're likely to twist them like pretzels during THIS variant. Two more elements that place Casino Royale on the same rarified plateau as Goldfinger and its predecessor From Russia With Love is that all three are the only films in the entire Bond series that are viable Ten Best entries for their respective years, and all three of them, to refer to a very funny play that Casino Royale makes on one of 007's signature lines, are the Bond films virtually guaranteed to leave their audiences both shaken AND stirred.
9/10
The love story
susurrus-114 December 2006
I liked the repartee between Bond and Vesper, but I think she needed more sex appeal; the thin, tomboyish character depicted here was more like a sophomore at Vassar College. It looked more like friendship - I expected more suppressed magnetism between them. Read Casino Royale and you'll see what I mean. Maybe it's an Ian Fleming -1950's kind of sexuality. The old-European setting at Montenegro was terrific. Pleasure to watch the power, the manners, the clothes, the cars, the gambling tables, of the filthy rich. I'm relieved to see a dead serious James Bond, not completely tongue-in-cheek. He doesn't laugh that much even when he thinks it's funny, like when he rams the SUV he stole into another car, in order to distract the security guards so he can look at the television camera CDs of people who recently visited the hotel. Daniel Craig - Blonde? Robert Redford is a blonde.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good attempt Craiggy... But Sean remains best...!!
singh-amrit19 November 2006
Coming straight to the point. Has Denial Craig passed the acid test...?? Is he the right inheritor of the legend...?? Verdict: very good attempt. At least he has made the critics chew their tongue, who had blasted him off as soon as he was signed to portray the sexy spy and take the baton from Brosanan. But the words going round that he is best bond is appreciation done a bit too much. Sean remains the best bond. In fact Craig has still to match the charisma of even Brasanan. He lends the required spark in the character with good physique, good action and graceful sturdy yet venerable looks.

So Denial Craig almost passes the test, but the film as a whole is disappointing, lacking the high octane action sequences, the trademark of Bond films. Also lacking is the legendary Bond music, which u only get to hear when credit roll in the end. Even the Bond girls, though nice, but fail to raise the temptation.

But the film ends on a promising note when Craiggy dressed in classy tuxedo marks the arrival of new Bond and concludes with the words you would be dieing to hear all through the film.... The name is Bond. James Bond.
9/10
Fantastic, shame about the last act
VaticanAssassinWarlock23 November 2006
Casino Royale is, on the whole, a fantastic film. It contains breath-taking set pieces, a thrilling plot, and well developed characters. By going back to the start they are returning to Sean Connery's Bond, the charming psychopath, and Craig certainly gets the latter right. He is a smart, resourceful monster, lacking in conscience and with little morality. Any fans of Patricia Highsmith's Tom Ripley series will see distinct similarities between the cold, calculating killers. As for the charm, the film implies it more than it actually comes out. Everywhere Bond goes girls pass second glances and fall at his feet, despite his often abrasive and slightly wooden lines. He's built like a monster of a man, and he acts it too. At the start of the film while chasing a free-runner, the limber antagonist flies up through a small gap in a wall and glides down the other side (it's truly impressive, as most free-running is)... Bond, chasing him, plows straight through the plaster wall and out the other side. A brilliant scene which perfectly defines his character at that point of the film.

As the film goes on, we are lead (often blindly... As part of the raw feel of the film we are hidden from any mission objectives) from scene to scene, all which perfectly build the story and the characters. The second act, centred around a game of poker, is truly thrilling whether you know the rules or not, and everything is going perfectly. And then, bang, we hit the third act and the film starts to fall apart.

Plot strands which were running separately start to flail wildly, people are disposed of with no real explanation why, and we are given half an hour of bad dialogue, followed by a spectacularly pointless finale where the audience are introduced to an Italian villa, and then are supposed to feel a sense of excitement as it begins to fall down. A last minute twist adds little, and a truly pointless martyrdom lead you to begin questioning where this film is going.

But worst of all, the film develops a totally different agenda. They might as well have held up a big banner saying "looky, we're relaunching the Bond series", and rather than give us a satisfactory ending, they simply hint towards a follow up. The worst victim of this is the brand spanking new Bond theme, played on every trailer and merchandising cash in for miles around, is totally dropped from the film, only making an appearance for the end credits. The fact that they took one of the single greatest aspects of the Bond franchise and left it out of every key scene in the film, and then used it for the "To be continued"-esq ending speaks volumes.

This is a great film, but the last act angered me so much that it dropped it from a 10 to an 7, and then once i had a little time to cool down, back up to an 8. When asked what i thought of the film during the closing credits, just three words sprang to mind... Mission Impossible Three. The director has taken an amazing concept, turned it int a great film, and then messed up at the very last minute. Maybe, given time, I will be able to forgive this (the same hope i have for X-Men 3), but for now the last act seriously effects the feel of the entire film. And until such time, this remains a spectacular, but flawed, movie. They have made such an effort to demonstrate that this is the first of a new series... lets just hope they can follow it through.
9/10
Superb Action!
brimblemeister15 January 2007
I'm not Bonds biggest fan, even if I am British, and I've seen a few but this could quite easily convert me. This is all action, adrenalin pumping cinematography.

I'm going to make a bold statement maybe, and say Craig is the best bond to date, he may lack the swarve sophistication of Connery or Brosnan but he really delivers an all action performance. I was slightly sceptical at his appointment as the new Bond but then I couldn't think of a better option also. But any doubts were pushed aside after about 15 minutes, his acting is decent even for a Bond film!! and deserves a mention for this I think but on top of his decent acting he defines action.

Le Chiffre is a top villain, ice cold and clever and the Bond girls are top notch, not a big fan of Eva Green pre-Bond but I certainly am now.

The opening credits are stylish, and being a graphic designer I appreciate them and their artistic values, up there with Kiss Kiss Bang Bangs' for me.

The story was solid, and the cheesiness was limited and although it is a Bond trademark it was nice to see it reduced.

Being a part time poker player the poker scene was maybe the let down with the 10000000000000000-1 situation, but the cards aside the interaction between the characters at the table was intriguing.

Overall this is my favourite bond to date and Daniel Craig has arrived, although I personally have always enjoyed his films.

a big 9 for this one and thank you for getting this so so right
9/10
thefilmguru reviews: Casino Royale
thefilmguru-323 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Do you know, i wouldn't blame you for calling me sad when i say i have seen this film 3 times and am going another 3. Its just great though. Its such a cli che but i do like it every time i see it.

Daniel Craig is Bond. If he had brown hair he would be the closest to Ian Flemings' Bonds look and character there has ever been. Harsh, ruthless and more realistic. I mean, if you work for MI6, you're going to expect to get your hands dirty right? Right.

Its just set piece after set piece, memorable scene after memorable scene, i couldn't pick out a bit for you now, but i can pick out a few. The machetti fight down the stairs; exhilarating. The Poker Game; Probably the best scene(s) in the whole movie, people say its too slow paced, which it is but in a blood pumping way. The crane fight; it gave me vertigo. Miami Airport; this is the first time i felt "My god, i love this film". I felt that about 3 times during it.

The bond girls are great, great acting and great characters. Bond also has such a raw sense of humour and...yey! Its actually funny! In other bonds he was trying too hard and it was just too cheesy but now, all 3 times i went, the whole cinema was in uproar! Oh, and don't get me started on the bad guy. Okay fine you have me started now...Le Chiffre looks stereo typical at first, with his scar and accent, but he is so not, he is so original. The good thing is, you feel like he could actually give bond some trouble, but at the same time, you feel like he is intimidated by bond. Also you feel like Bond IS in trouble for once, so again, its more realistic.

The script is great, and the story is great, lots of my family say its the first bond they have fully understood, enjoyed, and been at the edge of their seat at.

The directing / cinematography is great and keeps you guessing / exhilarated and sets the tone.

Basically, all i have to say is that i thought this film was so good, it out beat Bond Himself. every time someone went "Bond" or "James" in the film i was like oh yeh! Its a bond film! I was like that because this is just so much better than a bond film. Its in another league. Move aside Impossible Mission Force, and move aside Jason Bourne. Here is Bond. James Bond.
10/10
fantastic film i love the new broody James bond
alamara20816 November 2006
I have just seen casino royale in cinema trying to be as unbiased as I can be as i have seen how much flak Daniel Craig has been receiving so I thought 'let me give him a chance' and he surpassed all my expectations.I think he suits the role brilliantly and takes the franchise into a new direction that seems appropriate .He plays a much more clinical, cold hearted and tougher bond.A more grittier and darker bond and the action and fight scenes are fantastic , both well choreographed and high octane. Im still unsure how the film received a 12a certificate in the UK as it is very violent much more than any other bond film and yet considering the new persona of bond it seems all the more appropriate. Go see this film because in my opinion it definitely lives up to the hype.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond re-visited and re-vitalized
bm-2523 April 2007
Daniel Craig was a strange choice for many, including me. I was sorry to see Pierce Brosnan relinquish the role, and couldn't see how Craig could do the character justice.

But, as someone else noted elsewhere, and unlike previous Bonds, Daniel Craig can really act. Not only that, Ian Fleming could write. So when you combine a closer adherence to original novel with a raw, visceral and utterly convincing lead performance, it's no surprise that this is probably the most satisfying Bond ever. (And earned Craig a BAFTA nomination to boot.) In fact this is such a refreshing take on Bond, I find myself musing about shooting many of Fleming's novels all over again. The flippancy of the Moore productions with, for example, the utterly implausible "Jaws" character did the franchise no favours at all. This new approach (major kudos to Broccoli for taking such a gamble) restores and revitalizes in a way that the Lazenby and particularly the Dalton films threatened, but never entirely delivered.

The Bond character of the novels, as I remember reading in my youth, was suave, sophisticated but entirely ruthless and discompassionate about his job AND his women. There was real menace about the character. You would NOT mess with James Bond! That danger, risk and sense of threat is more believable here than in any other Bond film. Those films had deteriorated into Pantomime and Special Effect self indulgence.

So this Bond movie has plausibility. Daniel Craig as Bond is truly a maverick; on the edge in more ways than one. We see him struggling with the consequences of his newly assigned assassin's status. He neatly and poignantly finishes his victim's statement that the second time (using the 'double 0' sanction to kill), is easier. But he realises through the movie that this licence comes with a heavy price. Action, plot AND back-story - quite a feat!

Well done, Daniel Craig! You utterly convinced as Bond and in the process showed your critics where to shove it!
This movie in fact is one of the poorest from all the Bond series.
wino0619 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Finally I saw this movie after hearing lots of information how it was different from the rest of the series. Unfortunately I was disappointed after I watched it as it didn't face with my expectations. Considering that all Bond movies have accents that you see them in each part, now almost all the rules have been broken. Starting from the main character who rather looks like some simple street fighter (or boxing fighter) rather than a gentleman; his very poor language without any sense of ironic, sarcasm and intelligence in every line he says. We won't see Q who always prepares some gadgets for OO7. Instead of Walther PPK, Bond uses (I think) Berretta. No happy ending with woman in arms. The introduction title could be used 15 or 20 years ago - the song and introduction usually reveal the modern fashion and visual special abilities. Even Bond's opponent is just an ordinary man who has no secret and truly saying is not interesting at all. We all got used to that movies about 007 agent are spectacular, incredible and amazing - but not this one.
9/10
Layer Cake 2
fredo7020 November 2006
Absolutely brilliant, I am actually blown away by Craig's performance. He is the first actor to play Bond who has stepped out of Connery's shadow. While watching the film you just don't compare Craig's Bond to any previous incarnation, HE IS BOND. The producers have made a bold move with not casting yet another Connery look alike. Instead they cast someone who has the same attributes as Bond, extreme maleness, ruthlessness and the steely stare of a killer.

The script writers should also be applauded by leaving the story and themes of Fleming's original novel and then tying in some awesome action scenes. This movie is the nearest to a bond novel since OHMSS. Leaving in the famous line, "The bitch is dead", is inspired. I also thought the use of Texas Holdem was great, very visual, when you think for a moment Bond has lost with a bad hand, that turns out to be a full house.

Just can't wait to see what happens in the sequel
9/10
A new world, a new Bond
glasgowdave19 November 2006
Speaking to friends, before going to see this new Bond Movie, they were all in agreement, that Bond, as we knew him, had run his course.

The savvy writers, of this screenplay, had obviously come to the same conclusion. They have tweaked the character, and put him back on track.

What we get is the deconstructed Bond of old, and in his place, a vulnerable character, who wrestles with his conscience, a man who knows he is good at being a cold hearted killer and even more aware of what he has become.

This is a Bond that bleeds when he has been in a fist fight, his knuckles are cut and swollen, as I'm sure anther part of his anatomy is, later on in the film.

What of Daniel Craig in the starring role? Well it was a risky bit of casting, by the production team, but one that has paid off handsomely.

Make no mistake, Daniel Craig IS James Bond.

He has been given a unique opportunity in the franchise, in that, with Casino Royale, we go back to the beginning, Bond is just newly promoted to double-O status , and we learn why the Bond of the past, or is it the future?, became the cold hearted character we previously knew.

If you were never a fan of the old Bond, then this is a chance to see a metamorphosis to a Bond fit for purpose, in the 21st Century.

Don't take my word for it, get out there and see it, where it belongs, on the big screen. You won't be disappointed
6/10
Rather Confusing
knight_armour1 April 2007
The start of this movie opens with a burst of action sequences that promise an entertaining ride; more than your typical Bond film. However, it begins to lose momentum halfway through (which is over an hour, by the way) and settles into a hodgepodge of plot twists that apparently have much less to do with the story than Bond himself. The plot, it would seem, was only a means through which the director wanted to mold Bond into what we expected from him in the first place. Personally, I didn't see the need to reinvent Bond. I liked him just fine. If people really are tired of the 'old' Bond, they'll watch something else. You don't go to McDonald's and say you're tired of Big Macs. I missed the fancy gadgets, the hero-villain showdown (a 'real' showdown, that is) and the sex appeal of sophisticated female characters (especially villains) who don't use every opportunity to remind us to take them seriously. Most of the characters were underdeveloped so that Daniel Craig could blossom. Unfortunately, we'll just have to wait for the next Bond film so he can deliver the goods. Overall good entertainment but expect to be a little disappointed by this 'Bond' film.
10/10
For the first time in years, the Bond series is heading in a promising direction...easily one of the years top films.
ipreach4ever8 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the Bond film many have been praying for for years. A Bond film not stuffed with special effects. A Bond film not filled with ridiculous gadgets. A Bond film without Brosnan. Their time has come.

Casino Royale is, without a doubt, one of the years greatest films, if not, the best (though I haven't seen The Departed yet)films this year. Casino Royale is, very much, back to basics. In a good way. Daniel Craig has outdone himself as Bond, despite all the scrutiny surrounding his appointment as Bond. He is a worthy Bond and he acts well. The villains etc are picked very well, and a quick cameo from Richard Branson went down well with me. Some very memorable moments, ie when bad guys are chasing Bond at an airport when a landing jet raises the throttle, and in doing so completely blows the bad guys car flying off the runway. The poker game is a tense and memorable sequence, along with the start and finish.

As for the Bond girl, she was much better than expected. Mysterious, and an all new take on the Bond girl.

The theme song is surprisingly catchy and very much suits the movie and the opening sequence, which is a great opening sequence, and an ending that will blow you away, and have you leaving the cinema thinking: "Truly, James Bond has been born again". Hopefully it stays this way. No more stupid gadgets. I know I've said it before but, the end was an absolute beauty. Perfect. The whole cinema was roaring with delight. Bond is born again.

Great film, great action, great...everything. Some moments that had you gaping, and had you smiling. A promising look for the Bond films to come in time. Go see it. You won't be disappointed.

10/10
10/10
The best Bond since From Russia With Love
roger-39525 March 2007
I confess I rather lost interest in Bond a short time after Roger Moore took over the franchise. I was familiar with Flemmings novels and the tone of Moore's Bond was so far removed from Flemings (or Connery's interpretation) I just couldn't bring myself to watch. When Dalton replaced Moore I had simply no interest in the genre and that remained true after Pierce Brosnan took over as Bond--I saw Brosnan in Die Another Day and had to admit he made an excellent James Bond. I think what turned me off to the whole genre was its apparent focus on silly chase scenes, near slapstick humor, and adolescent fantasies about scantily clad gorgeous females. Fast forward to Casino Royale...

Daniel Craig is without doubt the closest thing to an Ian Fleming Bond thus far. Sean Connery was very very good but Craig plays the character closer to the tone in Fleming's novels, where Bond is simply an accomplished cold-blooded assassin and a cold hearted bastard. Even before I saw the movie I figured Craig would be perfect for the roll.

The opening sequences set the tone for Bond's ruthlessness and the breakneck pace of the free running chase sequence is without doubt one of the best chases I've ever seen on film. The choice of an on foot chase rather than yet another mindless car chase was a brilliant decision. The man being chased by Bond is a professional free runner (an extreme sort) and one of the originators of the sport: This man did his own stunts and Daniel Craig did all of his including the high elevation efforts some 200 ft above the ground. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) makes for a perfect 21st century Bong girl: She is stunning yet intelligent and cool under pressure; the perfect foil for Bond. These two have just enough sly humor to keep the film from getting too intense. All of the bad guys are perfectly cold blooded and ruthless especially Mads Mikklesen as Le Chiffre, and his beautifully sinister girlfriend Valenka (Ivana Milsevic). All of the supporting actors are equally excellent. In fact, it's hard to find a weakness in this movie but one does exist: This is a whole in the plot. I've watched the movie at four times and I simply cannot figure this out.

Bond and Lynd have escaped the clutches of Le Chiffre and his henchmen (and woman) and are sailing around the Mediterranean. They stop in Venice to resupply and Lynd appears to double cross Bond. Bond won an enormous amount of money at a high stakes poker game and this was supposed to be wired to the UK government who funded Bond's entrance into the game. Lynd withdraws the funds with the intent of giving it to the bad guys who retained the services of Le Chiffre. Bond gets wind of this and follows Lynd and interrupts the transaction. A fight ensues where Bond offs his adversaries but during the fracas, Lynd ends up seemingly trapped in an elevator. The building, located in Venice, is built on the water and Bond manages to begin a collapse of the structure into the water. Lynd's elevator ends up in the water. Bond had every intention of killing her for the double cross but ends up trying to set her free. Lynd has a guy which she uses to lock the elevator gate and the elevators sinks underwater with Bond still frantically trying to free the woman. It is clear that Lynd purposely took her own life, a point which the movie obscures and never clarifies. It turns out that she traded the money for the life of Bond and herself but that doesn't explain why she let herself drown. Based on previous Bond films, any woman who manages to obtain Bond's love has to die and Vesper Lynd was no exception; yet, it would have been nice to close this loose end...perhaps in the sequel.

Anyway, the loose plot end is a minor point. The movie is terrific but be forwarded: The tone of this Bond is completely different from any previous movie: Connery comes closest but Craig is the more ruthless. Anyone looking for an adolescent fantasy would do well to rent another DVD. This is an adult spy thriller intermixed with what is really a poigant love story. On the face of it, this mixture would seem improbable but Craig and Green make it work.
8/10
This excellent reboot of the long running franchise owes more of a debt to Dalton's films then Brosnan's, Moore's or even Connerys.
Chris_Lacon7 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Taking inspiration from Christopher Nolan and "The Dark Knight" series, "Casino Royale", is a much needed reboot of the long running spy series. Like its spiritual predecessor, it strips away the bloated, elements from a series which eventually became a parodical, CGI addled shadow of its former self. Casino Royale is a darker, leaner movie, not only in comparison to Brosnan's poorly received swansong "Die Another Day" but also compared to the majority of the films in the series. Ironically, in addition to both Nolan's Batman reimagining and the "Jason Bourne" series, "Casino Royale" owes more a debt to Timothy Dalton's "The Living Daylights" then Roger Moore's "Live And Let Die" or even "Dr No": Connery's iconic debut and the first film in the series.

Similar to "GoldenEye", Bond is fighting, not just against international terrorists, but for both credibility in a changing geo-political world and audiences changing expectations. "GoldenEye" faced this problem, with various characters and critics questioning Bond's relevance following the Cold War and with changing social attitudes. "GoldenEye" however, was successful in subverting audience expectations and breathing fresh life into a stale franchise, due to poor writing and plots, Brosnan's subsequent Bond films were increasingly disappointing, culminating in "Die Another Day", released in 2002. The film and its reception had a sense of déjà vue for many critics, with many of them again questioning the series relevance in the post 9/11 world and also the character alongside more recent action hero's such as Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. Once again, it seemed, Bond had become obsolete, "A relic of the Cold War" as Dench's M put it.

"Casino Royale" manages, perhaps more successfully than "GoldenEye", to subvert audience expectations regarding the series by stripping back the majority of the tropes that people had both come to love and expect from the series, Casino Royale manages to successfully craft a Bond film that feels relevant to the post 9/11 world and proves that 007 can still hold his own, regardless of what audiences expect.

This success is due in no small part to Craig's performance as Bond. Instead of the almost superhuman spy we got in the previous movies, here, we get a more inexperienced, rawer 007, who whilst still being capable of shooting a man in cold blood or coldly dismissing the death of his lover with "The jobs done, the bitch is dead", also has a degree of vulnerability that we have not seen in a Bond film for a while. Craig's Bond is not invulnerable; he makes mistakes, is poisoned, beaten, and tortured. When compared to Brosnan spending four movies mowing down bad guys like Rambo without a scratch on him, it feels considerably more refreshing to see a Bond who bleeds. It also makes Craig's Bond feel more real and grounded: Take the scene following the fight in the stairway, Bond doesn't adjust his tie and make a glib remark or pithy comeback, he goes back to his room, pours himself a glass of scotch and washes away the blood from his bruised and battered body, at times even wincing in pain. This is a Bond that owes more of a debt to Dalton's burnt out killer, then Moore's suave playboy.

In terms of the supporting cast, Eva Green as the enigmatic Vesper Lynd, gives a stylish, yet understated performance. Like Craig, she gives a more nuanced performance as Lynd: her portrayal of Bond's love interest is more complex, subtle and tragic then the stereotype's and gimmicks that came before her. Green's Vesper is unlikely to crush a man between her legs, or be a martial arts expert, but she is undoubtedly the emotional core of the film. As the films principal villain, Mads Mikkelson gives a similarly understated performance as Le Chiffre. Le Chiffre doesn't have an absurd plan to take over the world and is armed with nothing more than a inhaler and a eye that weeps blood, however Mikkelson turns in a multifaceted performance. Le Chiffre is a much more believable villain and whist he does come across as a more human antagonist, he never loses his subtle menace.

The action in the film have also been drawn back. Taking clear inspiration from the fight scenes in the "Jason Bourne" franchise, "Casino Royale" provides far more intense, scaled back but still thrilling action pieces with a degree more tension than previous instalment's. The opening construction site chase is a particular highlight, with Bond perusing a terrorist who uses parkour to his advantage. As previously mentioned, Craig's Bond is considerably more human than previous instalments and so, whist it is obvious Bond won't die at any point, it's more refreshing to have an action film where you can actually almost feel the blows. The action is also considerably more realistic and brutal then previous films. During the staircase fight sequence, Bond strangles a man to death with close ups of both the man's face as he gasps for breath and Bonds bloodied shirt following the act. It's not quick, it's not pretty and its unlike anything we've really seen before in a Bond film. This goes to show that Bond is far more brutal that we'd thought which again adds a degree of depth to the character, showing the darker side of his job. This more intense, brutal action style may, to a degree, alienate older fans, more used to a Bond film being mere escapist fun, however I believe the vast majority would agree anything's better then Brosnan riding a CGI tidal wave.

Overall, I would say that "Casino Royale" works, as a reboot of a series that desperately needed rebooting, and once again that the Bond series can evolve from parody to gritty and relevant to today's audiences. Giving us a serious, gritty film without alienating fans, Craig's debut, proves that there is life in the old franchise yet.
3/10
Deeply Flawed
grifter11030 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw Casino Royale last night and I'm still FUMING! Let me tell you why, from the start...

The opening sequence to CR was boring and looked hashed together out of some sort of bigger sequence. Was this from something larger that the studio decided to cut? Did they shoot it at the end with no cash? Did one of the producers decide to let his 13 year old son have a go at writing a bond film opening? When compared to Roger Moore parachuting off a mountain then his parachute opening to reveal the British flag and the bond theme kicking in CR's opening sequence is dull!

What happened to the titles at the start? It looks like an avert for an IPOD!

Up until the end of the airport scene it wasn't clear what was going on. I sat wondering when the actual story was going to start. Then it turns out that this bond 'villain' is using warlords money to buy stock which he then manipulates with terrorist activities. Hardly 'taking over the world' is it. This is the end of the 1st act as far as I could see and then we are bored to tears with the middle acts love story and pointless poker game. Love later but first the poker game. Why is this so long? It seemed to last for ever and had no tension what so ever. What was the point? If it did have a point it was lost on me. Something to do with getting closer to the bad guy and upsetting him? No idea? All I know is that the 2nd act was a overlong scene interspersed with some silly action pieces. namely our bad guy getting harassed by some African tyrants (what bond super villain gets beaten up by a couple of thugs?) and bond getting poisoned (ridiculous scene where bond dies because of a faulty wire, vesper brings him back and bond goes on to win the game). We then have some more action sequences and then an ending that nearly as bad as the opening. Oh, and someone kills the super villain as easy as pie! There isn't a story here its just a series of action set pieces and a bad love story with a ploy loosely draped in between. This was meant to be the darker bond, the bond thats more of a cold killer, a more realistic bond. All they did was stick an unconvincing love story in between two slices of action!

vespers acting is bad. Not awful, but bad. The scene in the shower where she is 'acting' traumatised is laughable. Watch it and see. She just isn't bond girl material. Im not convinced that bond would ever give her a second look if she was the only girl in the room. the character itself is annoying from the very start and I can see no reason why bond fell for her at all. How did she get this job? if someone knows, pray tell.

The love story seems to be an attempt at showing us why bond is such a git to women and to show us some sort of realism. IT FAILS! Bond ends up looking more than a bit soppy mooning over some account or whatever she is. It just wasn't convincing at all, these two had zero chemistry. I just sat there thinking 'Bond has had a quality control malfunction, someone call M quickly'. And it seems to go on for ever.

He hardly drives the Aston! yep thats right, he hardly drives it. Oh yes he crashes it down a hill so the stunt team can have some fun, but he hardly drives it. Worse still, the first car we see bond driving is a ford. No, I couldn't believe it either but its true. I don't know about anyone else but id rather have a good story than the knowledge that the stunt team set some sort of record for how many times they rolled the Aston. So what! In fact, what a waste, shame on the lot of you.

Where the hell has Q gone?!?!?

Where the hell have the gadgets gone?!?!?

Where the hell have the one liners gone?!?!

Whats with the product placement?!?! The ford. The watch. The bloody mobile phones every two minutes!

Daniel Craig is a good bond. he could have given us all a newer and better bond. He is let down by the dialogue and the script. He turned up all buffed up and ready to do the business but he needn't have bothered. i get the impression that he knew this as well.

I cant write much more as my fingertips are now bleeding, but...

I really wanted to like this bond film and i was led to believe that i was in for something special. All i got was some typical piece of studio made rubbish with a thin story and confused characters. It looked as if everyone on the production had had a bash at it. Oh, and they chucked in some big action bits. I wish someone had told me they were making this as a 'turn off your brain and watch the pretty colours' film because i wouldn't have bothered spending £4. Im not a bond puritan nutter and i don't own all the films in every format. i just know a good film from a bad one and this one was bad.

So much could have been done with this film and this new bond. Instead they just hired the same hack writers and hack director as before and got the same old tired rubbish!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10/10
All those Daniel Craig naysayers, Ethe irony!
tmupemhi19 November 2006
A brilliant portrayal of a well-beloved character. Deniel Craig as done what Dalton try to do, without compromising the charm and fun of the character. He has presented us with a believable character who for the first time the audience can understand and not just want to be. You can understand why he doesn't get close to women after this film, and why he can be described as a cold-hearted. Even after the reading the book, there were many scenes that were still a thrill to watch, notably the poker scenes and the torture scene. The love scenes were a bit flat and cheesy but the ending more than made up for it. Daniel Craig really does make u care for the character than just seeing someone stroll through a film. At the end of the film you will be convinced that Craig is Bond. I would go even far to say Sean who?
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig Is Excellent In Another Great Bond Movie
redsoxmb545-125 November 2006
Casino Royal is the 21st James Bond film, however, chronologically, it is the first. It takes place before the first Bond film, Dr. No, and yet it references 9/11, and the characters have cell phones and other things that make it out to be a 21st century film. Daniel Craig takes on the role of James Bond for the first time. The shoes of Bond are huge ones to fill, but Craig takes on the role with great intensity and is very successful at becoming the beloved character. That being said, it is still a little strange to see a new face as the familiar character. Casino Royale shows how James Bond became 007, and his first mission for MI6 as a Double 0 agent. Bond must join a high-stakes poker tournament at the Casino Royale, to stop an evil banker (Mads Mikkelsen) from winning the large prize money and using it to fund terrorist activities. Eva Green plays the main Bond Girl in Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd. Lynd is an agent from the HM Treasury who is assigned to keep an eye on Bond and manage his funds. Although disappointing to see no Q gadgets or big climatic showdown against the villain, the film proves it still to be a Bond movie with heart-pumping action sequences, harrowing car chases, and beautiful women. There certainly are some amazing action scenes in Casino Royale. Most notably the mind-blowing chase scene with the free-running African and the fight in the building in the city of Venice. Daniel Craig is not the best Bond. Connery will always have that status. But Craig takes a solid second behind him. Daniel Craig is the next Bond, and he is here to stay.
7/10
Good Bond, bad story
NotTheOne00020 June 2007
Considering how bad most big Hollywood movies are, I am not surprised how high this film rates in IMDb 250 ranking. Casino Royale is well directed, well acted and well shot - Daniel Craig is especially good as Bond, capturing nicely the essentials of the idealised British bloke.

However, I can see why it has taken so long for this book to be made into a proper Bond film. Yes, it is interesting to see the character of Bond as 007 develop, but the story lacks the structure needed for an exciting film and the climax is a big let-down. There is a section in the middle where the story really drags along and cutting out 15 minutes would have helped significantly. The bad guy character is poorly utilised and the back story of Bond's love interest is also misused.

So, 7/10 mainly for the directing and the acting; as an example of good film-making it probably is the best Bond film of the lot. Having said that, as a rip-roaring, Boys Own action flick it is not anywhere near as much fun as many of the Bond predecessors - Goldfinger, Thunderball, Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are all superior. It is better than all the recent films, though, and I am looking forward to the next Bond film with greater anticipation than since the last Roger Moore Bond movie came out.

As a final point, I'd just like to say what a waste it would be to remake any of the old films. If the Bond makers can't find a decent new story then they shouldn't bother.
9/10
Wow!!!!!
karenbickley18 November 2006
I had really gone off of the Bond movies in the last few years. Sure they had pretty boys but were so predictable and boring. So far fetched too!! Well tonight I saw Daniel Craig in Casino Royale and I can tell you I will be lining up for the next one!! He was fantastic. I had never heard of Daniel Craig and even when I saw his pic in the paper I wasn't impressed but I am impressed now!!! I can see that someone with the Bond franchise has finally woken up! And to think I was one of the ones upset that they decided not to continue with Pierce Brosnan!! I highly recommend this movie. Go see for yourself what the whole audience at the movies loved. You wont be disappointed!!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Negative reviewers, do I look like I give a damn?
s-sunilpal12310 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In one word, this project is brave. And I don't mean the brave but ineffective kind, but the one which is brave and impressive! Daniel Craig in the role of a just-been-given-a-00-status James Bond makes the character a part of his own skin. After Pierce Brosnan, accepting this new Bond was not easy. Yet the audience is bound to like maybe, even, adore this Bond. The innate flaws in a human are still there. We have a Bond who is ready to believe in someone. He is not as hardened as you might expect. Nevertheless, there are flashes of brilliance and ruthlessness in some of his decisions. Altogether, the picture is quite believable and satiating. The starting point of the movie does tend to drag with very little to impress. The starting score tends to balance this out. The Chris Cornell theme and the cards-montage is superb. Then we get to business right away. Parkour has long been a very interesting theme to me and here we are treated to some heavy dose of the same. Daniel Craig, in my opinion, is the best Bond when it comes to fighting sequences. The manner in which he gives chase atop a building is legendary. The plot in the movie is well-defined and lends credence to the importance of 007's first mission. There is no dearth of witty one-liners, too! One minor glitch can be found by asking the question as to why such an elaborate ruse was needed to make Bond play cards against Le Chiffre, who is a financier for terrorists and who shorts stocks in anticipation of (rather, by causing) terrorist activities to manipulate stocks of companies. They could have just seized him, in my opinion. Nevertheless the entire game is very entertaining and acting is superb. Eva Green does tend to scare with her permanent wide smile. She is pretty, though, in some of her scenes without make-up. Daniel Craig is top-class. The other Bond girl is quite hot but sadly, doesn't get much screen-time with clothes or without! A lesson may be learnt for filmmakers- don't try to emulate an earlier classic. An honestly made movie is ca classic in its own right!
10/10
Bond the way it should be
bulldawg811018 November 2006
I love the Bond series. I own all of the movies, and have seen them multiple times. As much as I love the overt humor and over-the-top action of a lot of the films, it was nice to finally see a gritty Bond film. There is plenty of incredible action, but what really makes the movie is the intensely dramatic scenes and the powerful acting by the cast.

Craig brings a completely new interpretation of Bond. We can see the pain and emotional conflicts within Bond which are so rarely seen in the series. Craig's performance never ceases to be dead-on perfect. Not only is he cool and witty as we'd expect Bond to be, but he can also portray anger and hurt brilliantly. In this film we see a different kind of Bond. We see a Bond who is not yet on the top of his game. He makes mistakes, he gets misled, and doesn't always complete the mission with perfection. Craig is the perfect blend of what we consider the cinematic Bond and the literary Bond. He brings everything you could want in a Bond to the table.

The rest of the cast was also superb. Mads Mikkelson is dead-on as Le Chiffre. He can be evil and menacing, but wisely does not take the role over the top. The character of Le Chiffre is really a pawn who is in a tough position, and Mikkelson shows how Le Chiffre is really quite frightened for his life. His exchanges of steely glares with Bond at the poker table are some of the best moments of the film. Eva Green is instantly one of the best Bond girls, she is Bond's equal in intelligence and also very sexy. It is believable that a woman like this could take Bond's heart. She is the best Bond girl since Tracy in OHMSS. Giancarlo Giannini is very charismatic in his role, and while his time on screen is usually not long, he makes the character very memorable.

This movie has easily the best dialogue of any Bond movie to date. The writers did a marvelous job, and I think Paul Haggis really helped them with it. Martin Campbell...absolutely incredible directing job. The entire movie was incredibly intense, even during some of the "slower" stretches. Overall the movie was a perfect blend of drama, suspense, and action. It's not only everything you want in a Bond movie, it's everything you want in a movie...period. As a lifelong HUGE Bond enthusiast, I have to say this one was the definitive movie. Perfect in just about every way.
9/10
A Bond for the new generation
thedudeabides-221 August 2014
Reboot is often a dirty word when it comes to beloved franchises. Sure, there have been some fantastic reboots recently, but, more often than not, they pale in comparison to what has come before. James Bond is a series which has been running since the 60's so it is perhaps inevitable that it re-invents itself after 4 or 5 movies.

Casino Royale was possibly the toughest challenge yet; audiences had begun to grow weary of the lame innuendos and increasingly outlandish gadgets, much preferring the gritty realism of the Jason Bourne movies. Thankfully, it appears that director Martin Campbell has taken heed of these concerns, and delivered one of the most satisfying Bond movies ever.

As with any new direction for the series, the focus is on Daniel Craig as the new Bond. There were reservations as he was not the hot property he is now, and many wondered if he could pull it off. We needn't have worried, Craig is an absolute revelation in the role bringing an as yet unseen vulnerability but retaining that iconic cockiness that we have come to love from Britain's favourite spy.

The story follows Bond as he tries to bring down some bad guys by playing poker at the prestigious Casino Royale. It doesn't really sound exciting but Campbell manages to wring some unbelievable tension from the poker scenes and there are numerous stunts peppered throughout. The most impressive of these occurs at the beginning with Bond engaging in a free running chase which has to be seen to be believed.

There are a few hiccups: the main villain is rather weak, it's about half an hour too long and it can sometimes feel like a Jason Bourne copy but these are minor complaints and chances are you will be having too much fun to notice.

A fantastic introduction to the new direction of Bond and Daniel Craig is perfect in the role. Great fun.
10/10
He's back!!
hammandbuble20 November 2006
Saw Casino Royale yesterday...twice...with only three hours between showing. Yeah, it's that good. Bond is back and better than ever. Yes, I speak blasphemy, but I thought Craig embodied the idea of Bond better than any of his predecessors. Bond is described as a "beautiful killing machine" and Daniel Craig is all that and a bag of chips! The man got a lot of flack when he got picked to play Bond and I'll be the first to admit he was NOT my first choice, but after seeing this I am a believer! He was a kick ass Bond in the first degree! The movie itself excelled in my expectations, to the point where I think I may sit down and read the book. The cast was perfect. Mads Mikkelson was a great villain and he contrasted Daniel Craig so perfectly that I wish he could be around for more Bond films. The girls were gorgeous and absolutely perfectly cast. There was almost nonstop action. I think the slowest parts of the movie was the poker game but it crackled with tension between Bond & Le Chiffre. All I can say is even if you don't like James Bond, you'll like this because it's a great movie, a great action movie, and nothing like any Bond film that's been done before. I'm so used to Q and the gadgets and whatnot that I had never imagined a Bond film without them. Now I'm glad they're not in this movie. They're too distracting. So go out, watch this movie, have a good time! It's great!
8/10
Yay
Pete-23030 November 2006
First Bond I saw was "Thunderball," in 1965 at age 7 (still wonder what possessed my mom to let me and my little sister go to the matinée to see that one). Have been a fan since, through thick and thin, but I was thisclose to giving up on the series after seeing Madonna and an invisible car featured in the last one.

They have me back. Craig is as close to Fleming's Bond as I've ever seen - even more so than Dalton. He's a thug, a hired assassin who works for us, but could just as easily succeed on the other side. His manners and politesse are merely the veneer that allows him the access he needs to do his job - again, much as Fleming described him. Plus, for once the guy has a physique that looks like he could possibly be pulling off the running, jumping, climbing, and hanging he's called on to do (c'mon - did you ever believe Brosnan or Moore would have had any chance in hand-to-hand combat on a ledge?) Here's hoping Eon goes back and remakes some of the earlier ones - "Spy Who Loved Me," "Diamonds are Forever," "Man with the Golden Gun" - that simply stole the title and nothing else from the books. It would be a treat to see real adaptations of the novels (albeit updated to the present day) done in the tone and fashion of this one.
6/10
a very long opening chapter
kingmonkey26 November 2006
Pierce Brosnan and some ludicrous (even by Bond standards) scripts and plots did all that they could to kill the 007 series. Thankfully, the name Bond has not been killed for good, although this film is a temporary adrenalin boost rather than a full resuscitation.

Two key elements save Bond for the future here. Firstly, a sensible plot for a change! Quite a clever one too, and not the standard megalomaniac trying to take over the world. Secondly, Daniel Craig.

Mr Craig was widely expected by the majority, myself included, to be a disaster in the role, since he is not quite as tall as he could be, a little bit on the blonde side and apparently inept in the ways of cars, guns and fighting. Happily, he does the job very nicely indeed. I refuse to compare him to "other" Bonds, that is lazy and will be done thousands of times here. In his own right he does a convincing job and at no stage looks like the wrong choice.

So why only 6 out of 10? Too long for its own good, I'm sorry to say. It spends far too much time on the whole "Bond Begins" scenario, and loses some punch as a consequence. "Batman Begins" it is not. If James Bond needed so much coaching and advice along the way, he surely would not have been placed in the scenario of the plot for "Casino Royale" to begin with? Casino Royale is a very nice way of clearing your mind of the rubbish that was "Die Another Day" and, to a degree, "The World Is Not Enough". Let's just hope that Mr Craig's next outing gets on with being tighter on the editing front.
"Royale" without cheese
stryker112130 April 2007
The moribund Bond series gets a much needed shot in the gut thanks to Daniel Craig. Gone are the bland pretty boys with their tepid sexual innuendos and corny one-liners. Craig brings a nasty and cold-blooded jolt to the usual tux-and-martini shenanigans, officially resuscitating the corpse that was cinema's longest-running franchise.

Craig's steely intensity brings weight to a typically thin Bond plot. Following a brilliant chase scene, the film is slowed by several prolonged card-playing segments that bloat the proceedings to an overlong 144 minutes. What's more, the movie's convoluted finale is rather predictable and unsatisfying.

However, thanks to Craig's stirring 007 turn, these flaws can be somewhat forgiven. Thankfully, the new Bond isn't the same as the old Bond.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Daniel Craig a British agent who does it the American way
amr_eid20 January 2007
I have waited for Casino Royal since the hype of the new 007. Daniel Craig, one of British theater's most famous faces is now starring as James Bond in Casino Royal. He is the first blonde actor to play Bond. The Four of the past Bond actors are Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan. Daniel Craig has it all, phlegmatic English, sarcasm and of course he is a womanizer.

"There are dinner jackets and then there are dinner jackets; this is the latter. And I need you to look like a man who belongs at that table" this quote is said by Eva Green the Parisian actress who was brilliant as expected. Eva green that played Sibylla in Kingdom of Heaven (2005) is a charming actress and is well fitting in her role. The director Martin Campbell is not new to produce 007 as he produced "Golden Eye" in 1995 however I think he is gone too far this time with all that action.

At the start of the movie unexpectedly there were no girls (except for cards girls) as we used in the beginning of 007 movies; it was animation of fighting between James and his enemies shooting spades, diamonds, trifles and hearts and unfortunately this animation extended into the movie itself.

The movie is about weapons and terrorism cartels in Africa and Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorist organizations who does not believe in god but believes in a reasonable rate of return. He launders and invests terrorism money in stakes and guarantees profits by manipulating it through terrorism attacks where MI6 link it even to September eleventh.

Mr. Bond leads the itinerary from Czech to Brag, Montréal, Madagascar, Vince, Bahamas, Miami, in order to find out the terrorism cell and who funds it and he clashes with Le Chiffre a professional gambler and the conflict take another direction and the green table becomes the new battle field. A sum of 115 millions for the winner and if Mr. Le Chiffre losses then he will have no alternative but to cooperate with MI6.

The movie starts in Czech by assassinating a traitor of MI6 office who sells information there; in order to clarify how the new 007 got early promotion after two professional assignations and that his 00 status is confirmed.

After the first 15 minutes you will suspect that the actors using Ever Ready as they do not seems to get tired. The movie does not leave much space for your imagination. Also, it will leave you with the idea that you are watching a carton movie that everything possible and its carton character never dies. You will feel tired after the first 15 minutes of running and climbing up building equipment without a justifiable reason.

Unlike other 007 movies which focusing on the new technologies this one doesn't concentrate on Mr. Bond gadgets or other gears like his watch or his car, Even the car has been smashed on the road before exploring its capabilities; this one focusing on exploring the new James physical capabilities. And as usual, James is a woman magnate and he is betrayed (or at least that what you will think) by the woman he loves and he even resigns for her.

The movie over all is entertaining.

Amr_Eid
8/10
Bond the new and gritty secret agent
piratecat-217 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We love are bond. Its hard for the purest to accept him. He doesn't have the class of Rodger Moore or Pierce Bronsan. Nor the build and manliness of Sean Connery but he is out there fighting a different enemy. His world is grittier more of a senseless violence in it. Now he is protecting the free world which is much bigger today. So our Bond can't be swayed by old values that will make the mission fail. He let his guard down with Vespar Lynn and it nearly destroyed him. Mr White is in for a big awakening. We have our man for right now to get the job done. Gerad Butler and Clive Owen would have made very good Bonds but they are old school this is the 21 century with very surly bad guys. It took me 5 times at the movie to accept Daniel Craig as Jame Bond agent 007 but what is done is done he has the job. I am ready now for the next Bond thriller.
10/10
Made Bond His Own
I went expecting, but not wanting Daniel Craig to fail in the role of James Bond. He worked hard. He worked so hard he became Bond. We talk of actors inhabiting a role. This guy took fiction by the balls and invented himself into reality. Very impressive.

What is not impressive is the Bond girl. Eva Green made herself drown. Great scene, good actress. Otherwise forgettable. Now, Judi Dench is supreme as M. She has more to do in this Bond than before, I'm glad to say.

This is not a spoiler. Just so the movie makers know. I do not like subliminal messages. We all know who Virgin Airlines' boss is. You don't have to cause thought other than appropriate.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bond on Valium
cogitare23 January 2007
This was the most disappointing Bond film I have seen since the original Casino Royale with David Niven. The plot is plodding and highly predictable, the acting from Craig bordered on wooden, Martin "Valium" Campbell clearly does not understand the whats makes a bond film a Bond film. Whats with filming a chase sequence in the dark from miles away? Even the normally excellent Dench was given very little input.

The set whilst beautiful, was lacking an international flavour, nothing sets it aside.

If you love watching endless tedious poker, this is the film for you.

Take a book, a reading light and plenty of strong coffee - you'll need it for this yawnfest, as exciting as a nose bleed. Production team - talk to Brosnan - really.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bond is a Lover and a Sophisticated Intellectual Fighter
sonofgodtrujesus19 December 2006
I would like to say this is one of the best bond ever but that would be far from the truth. This bond is too much of a gentleman and takes his job far too seriously. James Bond should be a chemical engineer, super geek, built like Dolph Lungren, who is taught the art of etiquette, seduction and espionage to represent and secure the secret interests of his government; what this movie delivers though is a psychotic patriot with deep emotional disorders.

The action sequences are not sophisticated; this film reminded me more of the Borne Identity series. Their are like 0 babes in this film. I wanted the opening sequence to be bond ravishing some European beauties on the biggest yacht ever seen, along with several hot vixens sucking on his toes, only to be interrupted on his hedonistic vacation with call to duty.

This bond is trying too hard and he's so unattractive as Bond; seriously, Daniel Craig is not pretty enough for this roll; his body is definitely GQ, but his face is just normal; Bond should always look like Ken or at least a trend setter for men's above normal attractiveness. If they wanted a more tough Bond then they should've went with Karl Urban; If I was casting director on this film He'd definitely be my first choice; what a waste of talent.

What I liked about this film was its running time. I love long movies. You can't really be submerged into a film unless it's able to preoccupy all of your attention for x amount of time. Casino Royale took its time in setting up and delivering it's story which was kind of interesting, though the main villain wasn't scary enough.

The cinematography was beautiful in this film; I could watch it over and over again due to it's visual appealing vivid colors and ultra cool film angles. Though the technology in this film looked like some video game; they could've at least contrived some nano particle device to make bond invisible or something new and over the top.

after watching this movie I wanted to see it again due to the hardcore feel of the action and the intensity of Daniel Craig's acting; he does kind of grow on you. Over all this bond is not one I'll own when its released on DVD. Martin Campbell has gotten a lot better though.
10/10
Daniel Craig fits the role!
igiveup23454 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The movie started out like any other James Bond movie. There were some deaths, and we were introduced to the movie. The first sign of change came, though, when the song intro with the credits had (gasp!) no naked women! Not that that matters much to anyone else besides ten-year-olds, but it made most of the audience realize that this was most definitely not going to be the same, womanizing James Bond that we all know. We move into a fairly amazing chase scene, where Bond is chasing a man through a construction site. They end up on top of a crane. After that, the fight scene seems forced, though, because nothing can match a fight on top of a crane. That was one of the only low points in the entire movie. The rest was spectacular acting, witty humor, but with a surprising absence of any sex at all, except between Bond and the first woman we meet. The poker scene was intense, Vesper's death was moving, the car crash made us groan, and the torture scene wade us groan and cringe even more. But it kept us laughing, somehow. Finally though, at the end, after he shoots Mr. White in the leg, do we hear the great movie phrase that we have all been waiting for. "Bond, James Bond." Now, is when Daniel Craig finally becomes immortalized with Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. And it seems as if hes been suited to the role for his entire life.
9/10
Bond is back!
bullzeye215 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I loved it! I had my doubts but they vanished with the opening scene. This is the new Bond and I can't wait until the next one. Daniel Craig worked hard for that role and it shows. I actually liked the gadgets and one-liners not being present. Overall, the movie has a gritty feel and with the exception of the card game, you can feel the possible dangers. I like the elements from the book that were put into the film such as Bond naming his martini after Vesper Lynd. I've noticed that many of the films strayed far from the books that they were based on but not this one. If you want the gadgets and one-liners and little realism then this Bond is not for you.
4/10
For Your Eyes Only - Total Spoiler
wbricke28 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If have not seen this movie stop here because I am going to rip it a new one. One Caveat-- this is not a review of Daniel Craig. I think he will make a great Bond. He needs a decent script, a director and some acting classes but he has the essence, seriously.

This movie was billed as the "Origin of Bond". The first 10 minutes are but after that we zoom ahead to 2006 with the exception of the conversations between "M" and Bond which hearken to the promoted theme of the movie. Their relationship is just starting out but the movie is current day. It seems the script writer and director cannot produce a spy movie without the use of cell phones. If you have seen it I challenge you to imagine the movie without them. You can't because every clue that James follows comes from his ability to read the call history. It leaves one feeling that they meant to write an origin type plot but they didn't want to lose the money Sony Ericson must have paid to show off it's phones.

The best thing that you can say about the plot and the character development is that the movie seems disjointed. It has scenes that are real jewels that get lost in apparent attempt to make the film more marketable. You don't leave a plot this sloppily laid out unless you are sure that the fans will love it no matter what you do; and, let's face it, the Bond movies are the Wrigley Field of the movie industry.

To add insult to injury, the worlds greatest spy is duped by the old, "Yes, we were going to kill you but after you passed out you were rescued!" trick. He beds the heroine who has no scars from her apparent torture experience and is not suspicious. James who? Once again a phone call from "M", phone text messages and call history replace the keen eye of the Master Spy.

I didn't hate the movie. The first twenty minutes are probably going to go down in history as one of the best action intros to any of the Bond films. It really is pricelessly choreographed and executed. The place it falls down is that it misses the point. Bond is a tradition of excellent sleuthing, ruthlessness, technology and class, yes, but you still have to tell the story of a great master spy, fallible and lucky and clever as hell.

There is no way that this film deserves 8.5 stars. It just doesn't. I don't know what they are thinking.
9/10
One of the Best Bonds Ever
bsilverbush-111 December 2006
If you love James Bond movies, as I do, and have seen them all, as I have, you had to be initially skeptical about a "new Bond," as I was. I am happy to report, however, that the new Bond doesn't disappoint, in any way, shape, manner, or form. This Bond is as cool, calm, and collected as Sean, or if you prefer, Pierce; he rates right along side any of the previous terrific Bonds (of course, no one liked Dalton, and Roger was, by comparison to Sean, a second rate Bond, don't you think?). The story line is terrific, and the action, first rate. The opening scene, as good as any. The women, gorgeous, as always, and the locales, beautifully shot (again, as always). This movie, for me, was two hours and twenty minutes of pleasure; there wasn't a moment that I was bored or distracted. My only criticism: the title song was awful. I had been hoping for a McCartney (Live and Let Die), or even Madonna, or Carly Simon. But this title song was just about the worst I have ever heard. Fortunately, the lack of a good title song does little, if anything, to mar an otherwise perfect production.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig got class for Bond.
eternalsonyz21 November 2006
Craig is a typical type of actor "made-for-Bond" like Jeremy Brett "made-for-Holmes". I'm pretty sure whoever criticize him as 007 should be an idiot. Not only having a typical "cold style" of an English spy, Craig is also fit for the romantic part of the movie. His image is an image of a deadly spy, a killer, only he's on the good side. He made you wonder what damages would he deal if he works for the enemy, like Sherlock Holmes would make the greatest criminal.

Other than that, there are still flaws. The plot doesn't satisfy me. I have a feeling that it lack something to make it the best of the best. The music, the main actress, etc.

This is not the best in the 007 series, but it's far than worst.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent Bond Movie
vmk-0767415 August 2018
The so called Bond fans who cannot get over the fantasy gadgets and fantasy women and fantasy everything need to grow up. This is the 21st century Bond,and I am very glad to say the movie makers have,with this movie successfully transformed Bond into a 21st century person rather than letting him rot as a relic of the 60's. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of a shaken martini,it has style,charm and speed. Craig admittedly may not fit the typical Bond image which earlier actors played so good,but he has his own personality and his grimness and dark charm is actually believable and entertaining. He has done a great job by letting Bond finally FEEL and react normally rather than be a one liner murdering machine. Vesper is great and the chemistry was delicious. I agree Judi Dench was boring and Q was necessary and a few scenes went out of hand but there have been worse movies and worse Bond movies.This is a great movie and far better than many spy flicks.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Only the second film i've seen that i could have walked straight back into the cinema and watched again.
sibloo4 December 2006
The only other film i could have re-watched straight away was "The Matrix", another 10/10. Both were just so watchable and really worked the senses. I loved it, For me its the best Bond film ever. More realistic more engaging, i thought Craig showed great emotion and for once you could believe he was a trained secret agent. The support cast were great and Eva Green was was an inspired choice, extremely beautiful with a cold hard edge but also a vulnerable side. The action was superb, edge of your seat stuff with an on foot chase scene that'll never be bettered. One of the reasons i loved it so much is because under Brosnan the role became absurd, cartoonish and quite frankly ridiculous. The franchise was becoming a joke with this pouting pretty boy in the most unbelievable scenes. Anyway enough of the ramblings watch this film, its up there with "The Departed" for film of the year.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The name's Craig…. Daniel Craig
eliong22 November 2006
Bond is back (well... Craig is here for the first time)- with a vengeance! Great movie and ditto performance by Daniel Craig. All doubts about him as 007 can now be laid to rest. He portrays the rogue Bond, similar to Connery's 007. He goes with the times: spiky hair and ever that PDA-cellphone gadget which is becoming very familiar around us (didn't need Q to explain that). And the psycho-analysis by M and Vesper, something Connery's 007 would have been loath to undergo. The story is well-paced with "all the usual refinements" in the plot. And when 007 gets romantically involved you know what her destiny is (ref. OHMSS), we can't have a committed Bond next time, can we. The only reference I caught to the 1967 CR with Sellers/Niven, was Mathis mentioning the cavalry. With this CR, EON and Craig have done themselves a dubious favor: the bar is now set so high, it will be hard to top next time. And oh yes, the last five seconds, a masterful find!

Eric Liong Curacao - Dutch Caribbean
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great start
cckopi21 November 2021
I really enjoy this movie every time I watch it. Daniel Craig's Bond is really cool and Eva Green is also a very attractive Bond girl. It was more immersive because it was more realistic than the existing Bond. The storytelling process was also very good. Not much action, but worth seeing. Great movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The New Bond? Good? Bad? Damn Good
za-andres12 March 2007
A few days back I had two wishes. The first one was to see the stunning "Casino Royale" on the big screen. The second was that if I were to see it, I wouldn't be disappointed. My first wish came true rather fast, after some discussion with family members about the film itself. The second wish came the minute the new Bond movie, "Casino Royale" began on the magnificent big screen.

From the first scene to the last scene of the film, "Casino Royale" will have you sitting like no movie this year. I didn't even stretch. I didn't even look at my watch. My eyes remained focused on the big screen. The first scene of the film resembles a film noir miniature gimmick. The scene demonstrates how Bond got his position in a slick style; excellent dialogue, and excellent pacing. I must admit, if there were to be one complaint about "Casino Royale", it's the title. The title contains unsuitable rock music (there should be the masterful theme). It has a good idea, just not a very well executed one. Other than that, the film is a blast.

Daniel Craig is Bond. The blue-eyed, blond haired actor succeeds beyond my limits, beyond everyone's. He is agile, slick, and ultimately great. He creates Bond. He is perfect for it.

In one or two short sentences, "Casino Royale" can be best summarized by saying the following: Bond is invited to the casino royale to stop Le Chiffre. (who kills a lot of people, obviously) He gains a lot of money, and then ending contains an inscrutable twist to it. I don't want to go into detail, because then I wont stop writing.

In every sense, "Casino Royale" satisfies us all. It's dazzling, it really is. It's the new definition of a Bond movie.
1/10
neither one thing nor the other
davidmousley18 September 2007
Basking in the afterglow of the Bourne trilogy, I was encouraged to watch this on DVD ("it's just like them" I was told). How wrong can you be. This film was neither a tongue-in-cheek Bond, nor a half decent action thriller. Very slow (the card game was BOOOORING!) with a dreadful script (the line about the mouth and the little finger was a classic). Daniel Craig waddled about like a midget henchman.

The only good part was the start (thankfully), but even this was average at best.

The best thing they can do is either get Greengrass and Damon in for the next one or else knock it on the head.
6 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Wow! This is the best Bond ever!
adach18 November 2006
I don't write the reviews often but this time I really felt compelled to do so. I used to watch the Bond movies out of habit, I guess, plus you were pretty much guaranteed good action sequences, special effects and a bit of humor. The problems was that I stopped caring a long time ago and was forgetting the movie right after watching it. This installment of OO7 changed it big times! It's not terribly deep or complicated but this it the way Bond should always have been! It does all these things I just mentioned and oh so much more! It would also be a shame no too mention Eva Green - she's really good and not your typical Bond girl, which (at least for me) is a good thing. Don't get me wrong, though, Daniel Craig is pretty good too :-) I will not say anything about the plot. Instead (even if you don't like the Bond series but you do enjoy action movies in general) give it a shot and I doubt you will be disappointed.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow! This is more like it!
dishmanl17 November 2006
How quickly the seesaw became a long slide. "Dr. No" started the Bond films at a high level, especially for its day (1962). "From Russia with Love" (1963) added class, new sophistication and nastier villains. "Goldfinger" (1964), to me at least, proved to be the pivot point. Sean Connery remained the quintessential James Bond for three more "official" films but the offerings seemed to be coasting. From there until 2006, the Bond franchise offered mediocre to poor sustenance, mired as they were in silly gadgets, poor casting, awkward writing and "connect the dots"-directing.

Now, finally, "Casino Royale" picks up where "Goldfinger" left off and raises the bar again. Daniel Craig is the perfect choice for James Bond. His 007 is unpredictable, complex, brutal and sadistic, even at times, gentle. Mr. Craig, like Connery, is a talented, estimable actor.

The film's action sequences can leave a viewer gasping for air right along with the protagonists. The script goes full throttle then eases up just in time then ramps up again. Even watching the poker players and their supporters has its own excitement. Nothing seems artificial. The sets and locations are imaginative without being obtrusive (wow! there isn't a space ship in sight!). The score isn't up with the best Bond films but that doesn't detract from the movie.

In addition to Daniel Craig, the cast is top-notch, from Dame Judi Dench to Eva Green to Jeffrey Wright to the assorted villains. All are playing at the top of their game.

Now that "Casino Royale" is in the theaters, the producers know what elements can work for the continued success of "James Bond". Let's hope they don't squander a delicious re-start.
10/10
Casino Royale
sheila-hall6029 August 2007
I have just watched Casino Royale and it was the most exciting Bond film that I have ever watched. I have watched all the Bond films right from Sean Connery onwards, and I was not a real Bond fan until Roger Moore took over as 007. After watching Daniel Craig I have to say that he has my vote every time. The film has a good story, there was plenty of action, not too much blood and guts, and all round good entertainment. There was so much publicity with this film before it came out that I was sure it was not going to be any good, boy, was I wrong, great film, great set of actors - well done to everyone concerned! I would recommend this film top everyone to watch, even if you are not a James Bond fan.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent James Bond film!
epcot26-110 July 2020
Aside from Golden Eye, this was the next James Bond film I've watched more than once. It was such a fresh take on the character, and a new angle on the stereotypical "Bond girl". There was a little bit of realism in this, and it was very suspenseful and thrilling.

Daniel Craig was great as James Bond. I really wish they had not made the other Bond films that came after this one (e.g. Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, Spectre). I enjoyed the side characters as well. Eva Green as Vesper was a very good casting choice. I'm glad the script gave her character a little more depth/dimension than previous James Bond films. Judi Dench is great and dependable as always. Mads Mikkelsen was excellent as Le Chiffre...You almost felt sympathy for him in the film.

Overall, a great film with very good writing and very good directing.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond film since Gold finger and The Living Daylights
akumous21 November 2006
Before I begin my personal review let me just say that I've been a James Bond fan for many years and I have grew up watching James Bond before I could even read. That being said, let me also say that I was one of many fans that was against Daniel Craig being James Bond because of his facial qualities and the fact that I got used to Mr. Pierce Brosman as James Bond, and I strongly felt the old chap needed one more film under his belt to give a proper farewell to the role. Anyway, I sucked things up because a pretty face doesn't make a great James Bond film - it is the actor,the script, and the cinematography.

James Bond fans please set your fears aside; don't boycott the film, don't pick up a pathetic bootleg copy off the streets, and do yourself a tremendous favor to see this well crafted masterpiece because Casino Royale worth every penny of admission. The minute one sees Daniel Craig in action as James Bond then you'll understand why they made such a drastic decision because he's a damn good actor and a fantastic James Bond that rivals Sir Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton. Pierce Brosman, I love you and years have been good, but this a new era and we need a whole new take to keep the James Bond franchise rolling, and Mr. Craig has what it takes to make it happen with maximum effect.

As many of you have read before in countless websites; this film focuses more on James Bond as a character than the conflict at hand. It is all about bond and how he's molded to the confident, sophisticated, smooth talking killer we are known him to be and love. Through out the whole film we'll see a rougher side of him( or as M say it best, a "blunt instrument), but eventually as the movie progresses the character becomes Bond, James Bond.

Daniel Craig, I doubted you because of my ignorance but I put my pessimism aside; I watched few of your films that made me acknowledge your quality as an actor, which helped eased my doubts about not going to see the movie. He did a fantastic job; through out the whole film he reminded me of Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton, but with his he own unique style. I embrace you Daniel Craig, you're Bond, James Bond for this era and I can't wait to see more of your works. to see you in action as James bond....
9/10
Ian's 1st novel introduces us to a newly appointed "00" 7....
marabach23 November 2006
Forget everything you know about the films. This film is the first in the "new" Bond series. The first 1/3 of this film, I was sorely disappointed. The next 3rd, I accepted what they were trying to accomplish.The final minutes I rejoiced in the fact that this bond is about the "story", not the gadgets or some Ubervillian. Some people cannot handle a new beginning-watch the posting boards on this flick, but give it a chance and pretend you've never seen Bond before. You'll truly love it. I cannot wait for the next installment. Perhaps the reintroduction of more gadgets? Maybe a few more MI6 characters New century-new Bond...Nuf said.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very Interesting To See The Comments Of Those Here Well Versed In Bond (SPOILERS) --
heckchap18 November 2006
-- Because, I pretty much echo them. This is a terrific first half of a movie, with a flawed -- yet still hugely enjoyable -- second half.

When I heard the Chris Cornell tune, I absolutely hated it...having listened to it over and over, I have to say that it's perfectly matched to the movie, and really somewhat memorable. And the title graphics: wow. There've been overblown -- and often ridiculous -- titles in Bond movies over the last few decades, but these completely capture the 60s theme completely. I loved them.

Craig is fantastic. Dalton was my favorite for presenting the Bond of the book (everyone will always say Connery, but Fleming's Bond was flawed and not quite so obviously stand-out as Connery; and Lazenby could have been fantastic were he given a movie that matched his persona), but after viewing the movie only once so far, I'd say that Dalton may be relegated to my second place.

Congrats to David Arnold for providing a score that does what it should have done years ago -- emulate Barry while at the same time being up to date in tone. (Although a caveat for people who buy the score through iTunes for all the extra tracks: if you're outside the United States, you're totally out of luck: you can't buy the bonus tracks. I don't know how people in the rest of the world are legitmately supposed to be able to acquire this "filler".) LeChiffre is a great villain. Vesper is an interesting femme, with the whole "doomed girl" Bond Girl thing quite clearly modelled after Tracey in "OHMSS".

If there are problems with the movie, they're in the actual execution. As others have pointed out, Paul Haggis' dialogue is often undisciplined and rambling, and many scenes (Campbell's fault) could have been reined-in, perhaps losing 5-10 minutes of running time. I thought the card games at Casino Royale were as dull as anything seen on actual televised poker (barely no scoring, no build-up of tension).

A few missed moments: although the early Aston Martin acquisition is nice, after Bond driving rental (!) early on, it would have been nice to have seen his eyes light up when given the new Aston.

And was there ANYONE who didn't guess Bond's transfer password? I fully expected the instant LeChiffre saw him type it in, that he'd nab the case and simply do it himself.

A great first outing for Craig. Let's hope Barbara Broccoli doesn't blow it with further outings.

And for the love of God: use the actual title "Property Of A Lady" sometime soon!
9/10
The first Bond movie I truly enjoyed
Sabriane9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've never really been much of a Bond fan. I'm indifferent to the older Connery-Moore films which to me feel laughably dated and while I thought that "Goldeneye" was kinda fun, the joyless and robotic "Tomorrow Never Dies" pretty much killed off any interest I had in Brosnan films. When Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond, I sniggered about Blond, James Blond and had zero interest in seeing "Casino Royale". Then all sorts of rave reviews came pouring in and then I saw the trailer with Bond looking all ferocious and intense as heck (ok, and incredibly attractive too but I won't go into all that girly stuff right now).

I'll start off with the bad. There's a product placement moment concerning Bond's watch soooo blatant it makes one cringe. Also, the movie does run out of steam somewhat near the end. I enjoy a tragically doomed romance and collapsing Venetian buildings as much as anyone else, but there's just a very slight anti-climatic feel about it all.

The good bits? Pretty much everything else, with Daniel Craig easily being the best thing about the movie and, in retrospect, a stroke of casting genius. His Bond is a startling departure from the familiar, "classical" Bond type: blond, blue-eyed, with features that are striking and strong rather than handsome, shorter and more muscular. He's also totally convincing as a mean killing machine and at times looks positively scary. But while Craig's Bond is physically intimidating and tough, he also comes off as a lot more vulnerable and human than any Bond before him, less a superhero than a man who's just damn good at taking punches and picking himself up again and again like an Energiser Bunny. He makes stupid arrogant mistakes, is actually affected by some of the killing he does, gets scratches and bleeds. Of course, this being the movie-land Bond manages to miraculously survive stuff that would kill off any person in real life, but there's unrealistic and then there's unrealistic - like the invisible car, :) I also liked the fact that rather being saturated with uber-gadgets the movie relies on relatively humdrum stuff like mobile phones and tracking device. Craig does a marvellous job at conveying a character whose brain is always ticking away and who is always scanning and assessing his environment. You can see why M would put up with his arrogance and ego because the guy really is good at what he does.

Oh, and did I mention that this new Bond is damn funny too? He doesn't drop one-liners and quips every five minutes, but instead has a very dry sense of humour and when the script does throw Craig a comic line to deliver he does it perfectly.

The bad guys are refreshingly low-key: no moustache-twirling, cat-loving maniacs eager to take over the world, just your garden variety terrorists and a guy who wants to make loads of money. Played by the Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, the main villain of the piece, Le Chiffre, is a clammy, creepy, memorable character and a sadistic bastard to boot who also comes off weirdly human at some moments in the film. He never feels cartoonish despite the trademark "Bondian" touches like the impaired tear ducts that cause him to weep blood in the moments of stress. He's also got fantastic hero/villain chemistry with Craig's Bond, especially during the brutal and tense torture scene which perversely enough features the funniest line in the entire film.

Then of course there are the obligatory Bond girls. The sultry trophy wife and Le Chiffre's blond girlfriend are eye-candy for the guys, but Eva Green's Vesper Lynd is a far more substantial character. As much as I liked all the action stuff that happens in the first act, for me the movie really clicked into focus when Bond is off to the casino and meets Vesper. Green brings the sense of mystery and vulnerability to her character; she and Craig have the kind of wonderful romantic chemistry that is so often lacking in the so-called romantic movies nowadays, and their banter, particularly in the scene on the train where they "read" each other's characters, is sharp and funny. There's also a memorable tender moment when Bond consoles Vesper who's been shaken by witnessing the murder right in front of her eyes. Sure, anyone who is not lobotomised can guess the outcome of the love affair because dduh, Bond will never live happily ever after, and as I've said earlier the movie does drag a bit near the end. Even so, I enjoyed the romance bit and the movie would have been poorer without it.

Visually, the movie looks gorgeous with warm and inviting cinematography and the stunning European locations. I didn't really know what to think of the somewhat trippy animated opening credits at first but I grew to love their simplicity and elegance especially compared with the garish, cheap-looking CGI-fests of the few previous flicks.

So all in all, I've enjoyed this new incarnation of Bond a lot. My only hope now is that the film-makers don't chicken out and turn Bond into a cartoon again and give Daniel Craig the material he deserves.
10/10
Wow
alec-hass19 November 2006
In my opinion this movie is, by far, the best all around movie I have ever seen. It has amazing action sequences that are both believable, very entertaining, and unique. It is funny in a very witty and clever way, not at all cheesy. It is dramatic and serious and emotional at times, but it is believable, not cheesy and over-dramatic. The storyline is very true to the book and the basic plot is very simple, yet serious and significant. Daniel Craig's Bond is completely different from all the previous Bonds, but in an entirely good way. Basically this is my favorite movie of all time because not only is it a quality film, it is entertaining and exciting enough that I'll want to see it over and over again for the rest of my life. And none of this is an exaggeration.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig oozes the essence of "Bond...James Bond", this CASINO is ROYAL(E) indeed!
Doctor_No18 November 2006
From the start from the legendary opening scene to the beautiful girls, Bond is back and in full force. After the studio's stumbling about trying to get the 6th Bond I can safely say they made the right choice. "Casino Royale" which was originally made in 1967 with Woody Allen is now the birth of Bond yes James Bond played by Daniel Craig. Bond's first mission is to be sure to stop a man from winning a tournament to fund an evil company. The villain and plan is pretty simple but hell is sure ain't "Moonraker". Eva who plays the Bond babe is a perfect choice, she is charming, beautiful and perfect (not as good as Halle Berry of course ;) "Casino" is very action packed and a nice start for Bond I am excited for the rumored Bond 22 with Craig returning as the martini-loving, babe catching "Bond...James Bond" - ***1/2
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
u all gonna love the New Bond...
akashnelson26 November 2006
well tonight i saw Casino Royale and i found it pretty decent. And for the first time we encounter the emotional or i must say the humane side of Bond, and which fr a change is refreshing and quite nice. Eva green was also quite good, in fact everyone has acted well. no offense to the previous bond films, but i found the New bond film to be more realistic then the previous bond films ...And last but not the least Daniel Craig was pretty impressive as the New Bond...i must admit it is one of the best Bond movies in years. So all u bond fans out there, here's a new bond with a difference... and believe me in the end when u hear him say,"The Name is Bond, James Bond", u all gonna love him. so watch it and enjoy...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Daniel Craig IS James Bond! And that's fine with me!
i_am_bernie_g19 November 2006
I cannot remember the last time I was blown away by a Bond movie. But, I saw "Casino Royale" last night and I was FLOORED by it. That was hands down the best Bond movie I had seen in the last 15 years. Daniel Craig is the closest thing to Sean Connery in playing the Bond role. I can honestly say that Daniel Craig is my new favorite James Bond. And "Casino Royale" is one of my top 3 all time fave Bond flicks, behind "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "From Russia With Love". I highly recommend this movie to Bond fans and non-bond fans. It sticks with the book the majority of the movie and in the first 20 minutes, like me, you will say to yourself, "This guy IS James Bond and that's cool with me!" Great introduction to the character and great movie all around. You will not be disappointed.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as special as one might think
un115 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I recently watched the movie again, I have to say that I had a much more positive view on it back then as I do now(I was tempted to give it a 6).

Craig David is a new kind of James Bond, more aggressive, more traumatized by his past, more... barbarian, this isn't meant as a critique, I actually liked both Craig and the Bond he portrays. The problem is that it's the only novelty this movie and the new James Bond movies have to offer. As with every Bond movie you have a guy going on vacation in exotic places, having sex with beautiful women and "fighting bad guys"(which of course he does it openly, and in the most glamorous way possible, and everybody, especially the bad guys, know who he is).

I don't know what to make of the movie's love story, which is a main plot element of this movie and the next one, for me, let's say I find it hard to believe they instantly go from one scene where they almost hate each others' style, to being madly in love. While this type of inconsistent behavior might be easy to imagine for women, I would find it especially hard to imagine it for James Bond.

Overall the movie is entertaining, I definitely don't regret watching it, it fact I will probably watch it again at some point in the future, but seeing people say this movie is for James Bond movies what "The Dark Knight"(or any of the Christian Bale Batman movies) is for the Batman movies is a overstatement, as it doesn't revolutionize the story and dynamism of James Bond in such an extreme way, and the new James Bond movies lack the great villains that Batman had, especially one of the caliber and charisma of the Joker. Although acceptable, none of the villains Bond faces will remain in your memory.
8/10
A Successful Bond Make-over
simon-thome26 September 2009
I really have to say I readily join in the chorus of praise for this movie. This is mainly because after a long wait Bond is back. I couldn't stand watching another Pierce Brosnan flick since the type of Bond that Brosnan stood for was simply becoming outdated and trite. From the moment Daniel Craig was introduced there has been a critical debate about whether he was a suitable candidate for playing the famous MI6 agent. Since he is blond and features a look unlike all previous actors playing Bond, many fans and movie experts were full of doubt if he could bring to the screen what everybody who loved the old movies would expect. Those who planned on pelting him with rotten tomatoes were soon hushed by his convincing performance of Bond. He revitalized what was about to gather dust. Along with the introduction of a new actor came a realignment of the entire Bond concept. Shaping a new Bond experience is a dangerous undertaking for conventions people have grown fond of over the years can only be altered or changed with good touch for what is needed and what could be omitted in order to preserve what is required to make it a Bond movie and not just another spy movie. In my opinion the move accomplishes this mission and has some more qualities on the credit side. A fresh plot that entertains until the end, far more realistic and comprehensible action sequences though they are still in a Bond-like fashion (which means there is no literal realism), and a Bond girl that cannot be seen as an ordinary beauty but as a woman with style and character.

It might be too early to proclaim a new golden era of Bond movies. But beyond a doubt Casino Royale has vivified what was becoming uninspiring and dull.
10/10
Casino Royal is Tremendously acted, intriguing, gritty, and best Bond I've seen!
maribari2924 November 2006
I loved it!! Daniel Craig is awesome. Eva Green is superb. Ms. Murino is perfect for her role and magnetic in her role. It was such a great film. I enjoyed it fully, and I think it is one of the best films and stories of the year! I love the gritty and real portrayal of the advancement of a spy and what they must do to get there, no matter how distasteful they find it and no matter what a good person they are. This is what Daniel Craig as James Bond does in spades within the first 20 minutes, which is the mark of a great actor and a good script and storyline. Thank you to Daniel Craig for making such a strong impression on me. No matter what he does he will not be typecast because he does not put ego into the role. He is such a classic actor that he will be able to bend to any role and boost the level of any film, akin to Jeremy Irons (one of my favorites, I must say).
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
James....you scoundrel
tania926 November 2006
As with many fellow 007 purists, I was skeptical..however after seeing CR twice I do report that DC is the best Bond since Sean, As a female fan, I must attest to his yumminess on just a base level. As an action movie fanatic and martial artist, I have to give Big Bravos to the script and stunts.

Daniel Craig exudes sexy strength and confidence. PLUS, he can button his jacket with the same suave flair as Sir Connery. My question is ..what DOES Sean think of him? And additionally, what is the working title of the next film?

Not since the Matrix have we seen such a yearning for more from a franchise. Excellent job. Thank you.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely riveting!
tiki76903 December 2012
I really don't have anything bad to say about Casino Royale. It is an absolute masterpiece: fun, suspenseful, and classy.

This tells the tale of how Bond came to be. It has the perfect atmosphere; an atmosphere generated by cards, guns, girls, and loads of tension. I would have never thought a scene displaying Texas Hold 'Em could make me so tense.

It looks stunning. The direction is superb, and the acting, too. It's impressive that you manage to care so much for a character who is so cold. Or, at least, cold most of the time.

If you don't like this movie, so be it, but I'd have to assume you don't understand film.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
They Killed James Bond !!!!!!!!!
princegeorge_8517 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maybe you can call this a spy movie , maybe a thriller or even an action movie but this certainly is NOT a Bond Movie.

I don't know what all the fuss is about Bond being blond and all but taking away all the cool gadgets and Q was too much. And after a couple of initial action sequences that are cool but don't belong in a Bond movie (remember where Brosnan drove a tank through the streets of Moscow and adjusted his tie - this is nothing compared to that) the movie slows down completely . Add to that a pretty weak villain and a pathetic Craig trying his best to convey his feelings( when did Bond begin to have those ??) while trying his best to keep a straight face , this movie is a complete letdown.

And the fact that the real villain remains unknown even after the movie ends brings this movie closer to my Bottom 10 Movies. To top it all off "WHERE IS THE BIG ENDING THE BEGINNING PROMISES ????" Really , M:I-2 was better . I hope Craig doesn't stick around.
10/10
for the first time in ages, I am actually looking forward to the next James Bond movie
shaidarharan17 November 2006
Realism finds its way into the situations, action sequences, characters, and even their personalities – a significance because depth is almost always lacking in this area. Many of the past bond films had a certain amount of silliness to them that the actors and audiences were in on – I always felt that this was sort of an easy way out of having to find ways to make things fit, the sort of Adam West's Batman that eventually fueled Austin Powers. Don't worry, the bond character and lines are still there, but this time his character and those on the receiving end are in on the fun as well. As an origin story, this movie gives valuable insight into a James Bond that you hope sticks around. Daniel Craig is awesome.

Peter Bradshaw @ the Guardian says it to well to necessitate a rewrite: "It is all ridiculously enjoyable… For the first time in ages, I am actually looking forward to the next James Bond movie."
8/10
It IS enjoyable and yet....
truthlord12 January 2007
I have given this film 8 because it IS enjoyable- but unfortunately I didn't see it in English!! -so I don't have a clue what it was about!! I also think that Craig did come across-visually at least- as a real character.... Yet the criticisms of this film are valid My private belief is that Ian Fleming needing money got the idea for Bond from Cary Grants image -intelligent without being pretentously intellectual,fearless and a man of action yet always a gentleman-full of ironic laid back humour-a perfect example of an idealised British gentleman.... This image actually realised so perfectly by Sean Connery and maintained through the series has now been changed to accommodate changing times and more violent attitudes. The producers have discovered in Daniel Craig a superb example of an actor far more similar to any real James bond -if they in fact existed-and curiously its this that made the film surprisingly realistic. The fact is that Craig with his pointy ratlike face,sticky out ears small head and unsmiling hard expression is exactly like the many real brave British soldiers who joined the elite Commando Brigades in WW2.These men were often from working class backhand's and were trained as ruthless silent killers on special operations.Looking at Craig I was reminded of a well known character actor-Sam Kydd who looked like him and appeared in many British war films .... Yet where is the Cary Grant bit? I certainly didn't detect any trace visually...but who wants that kind of smooth sophisticated lifestyle and ironic humour today? The audience for these films is late teens and early twenties so I feel the producers have probably found the right man ...Only one thing might spoil the party...Bonds have always appealed to women...Will this new fellow produce the same attraction? The jury is I think still out on this one...I wonder...but perhaps the producers are clever...the next film may see Craig doing the full Cary Grant/Connery thing once again...perhaps he will even comb his hair....
8/10
Not just a Bond movie
nikolaospap-940497 November 2020
While it is certainly a great reboot for the franchise and deserves a spot as a top Bond movie candidate it is more than that. Judging it simply as an action movie it has everything it needs and it does it well. Great acting, well writen dialogue, good use of humour, chase scenes, epic fights and most importantly a great villain. This was an experience that left me wanting more sequels.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Maybe the first Bond movie ever...
BennettWilson26 November 2006
Bond movies have always been too Bond-conscious. Even the very first, the Connery set, though we probably became more acutely aware of this as the years and 20 Bond flicks filed by.

Bond 21 (could well have been known as the "Black Jack Bond" had it not been for the "poker" factor) loses all of that excess 'Bond awareness'. For the first time ever the other characters (not just the super-villain!) and the world around them all seem to matter... all of which makes the Bond character so much more believable... even if he does survive falls and blows that would, surely, kill most men (maybe even other Bonds!) and even if he spends most of his time among aristocrats and surrounded by opulence.

Sure, it's still not a perfect movie but it is a perfect surprise to be able to treat a Bond movie as an independent movie-experience and not to have to excuse it with the old "Don't forget: it IS a Bond movie" line.

And, as an independent movie-experience, I thought it was great!
8/10
A breath of fresh air.
valkir-119 November 2006
James Bond - a number one protagonist in action movies, a number one in gadgets, a number one in spectacular pursuits and beautiful women. Recently, I'm afraid, also a number one in spoiling the potential laying in the movie series. In my opinion, the last well done Bond was the Goldeneye. So actually "Casino Royale's" crew didn't have much to loose, did they? Yet in the very beginning they managed to create much fuss around the movie, more accurately - around the James Bond himself. They had a long list of actors able to play the role, but chose a quite controversial one - Daniel Craig. 'But he's blonde!' fans cried, 'and ugly!' added after a few seconds. I was quite content with the choice, as Craig's role in "Munich" projected promisingly upon his Bond role. He's got a good accent and he's a man, not some slimy figure like Brosnan.

Undoubtedly he's the biggest factor creating the impression of the breath of fresh air. When he's fighting, he really does it - he PUNCHES, he KICKS and he also gets really BEATEN. It doesn't come down to a scratch or two, like in previous cases. He's a broad-shouldered guy who just fits it. His accent and sharp dialogs make him even more interesting. In the romantic scenes he also manages to put up.

However, it is not only Craig who changes the overall Bond impression. First of all, I didn't mention the Goldeneye in the introduction due to some coincidence - it was directed by Martin Campbell, the guy responsible for "Casino Royale". New 007 has left the toys behind. There are no gadgets in this movie - besides defibrillator in his car - what makes it more pure. He just keeps a gun and he's on his own, I liked that. In addition, he's no longer a 100% gentleman with aristocratic origins. "I don't give a damn" he snaps when asked about his martini, or "You're a bloody idiot" when Vesper Lynd doesn't want to give him additional money for the game. He also had some humoristic dialogs, but on the whole - it's a brand new Bond, who really does suit me.

Settings, music, pictures - they're all surprisingly good. When leaving the cinema I had the impression that someone put much effort into making this one a good one. Some say that Eva Green is a bit controversial in terms of beauty, not everyone has to like her, of course, but I think that she's perfect. My type definitely.

Disadvantages? I found one. James Bond was always known of hot car pursuits. In "Casino Royale" he received the beautiful Aston Martin DB9S, and after a few seconds of ride, without shooting, without passing etc., he just destroys it. Such a waste! I do recommend this one. Never been a fan of James Bond, but I really like Craig in the role and the brand new attitude. In my opinion it's the best Bond ever made and one of the best action movies I was able to see.
9/10
This is Bond, accept it Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, first of all: y'all heard the criticisms: "No cool gadgets, no villain that wants to take over the world, blonde Bond, Brosnan was better, why did he crash that Aston Martini?, M is a monster, Bond never gets betrayed by a woman, no wodka martini shaken not starred, DAD was better, bring back Sean Connery, he lost a tooth, no beautiful women, he drove a Ford,..." All of this (and more) is what the whining fanboys are saying. Pathetic, because I'm sure some of them never gave Craig a fair chance and kept bashing the film long before it was released and long AFTER it was released.

If you've seen all the other Bonds, you KNOW that there are films totally different from others. Take a look at FRWL, OHMSS, MR, DAD, DAF... This proves many of the haters haven't seen (all) the other Bondmovies. Too bad for them.

CR is a great 007-film, with an awesome Craig. Are there things I don't like? Yes, of course. The PTS, title song & airport sequence. So it's . But that doesn't matter. I like it very much, and I hope they keep following the same path.

DC is here to stay!!!!
10/10
The name's Bond... James Bond.
sean_da_pol6 December 2006
"Casino Royale" is hands down the best movie I've seen this year. It might even be the best Bond film to date.

From the opening sequence to the last line, everything works. Best of all, unlike other Bond movies, it makes you want to see more. I liked Bond movies mainly because of entertainment purposes, but "Casino Royale" gives you more, it attaches you emotionally to it's characters.

I admit, when I first heard Daniel Craig was going to play James Bond, I was surprised and utterly disappointed. Although, I never liked any other Bond than Sean Connery. Well, first impressions definitely don't last.

After seeing "Casino Royale", Daniel Craig is arguably the best Bond ever. His fierceness and rugged looks only add to James Bond's coolness. The transition Bond goes through in this movie is pitch perfectly captured by Craig's performance.

The torture scene was incredible. I went from cringing with agony, to tears of pain, fists of rage and even outbursts of laughter, and that in less than 10 minutes.

And the there's Eva Green's Vesper Lynd. Not stunningly beautiful, but still endearing. Green and Craig had amazing chemistry. Their relationship was absolutely authentic and romantic. Their lines together made you want to believe it's real.

For once, Bond seems believable, brutal and yet still suave. If they maintain this tone in the upcoming Bond movies, the franchise will live a lot longer.
8/10
A royal treat
pantera116 January 2007
The "original" Casino Royale nearly destroyed the genre with its spoof take on the whole aspect. (by the time NEVER SAY NEVER (6/10) came around the franchise was pretty much impermeable). It was called charles feldman's CASINO ROYALE- more appropriate would've been Marty Feldman's...

THis ROYALE came from the Broccollis wanting to re-jig the franchise. Even though the last couple of Bonds have been monetarily pretty successful, they wanted to try something new. (I guess when someone gets too popular they want to start demanding gross points on profits a la Tom Cruise and you can't have that in the caring/sharing world of movie production. ) And they came up with their new Bond. Whereas they had rugged Bond in Sean connery, Teflon Bond in Roger Moore, anxious Bond in Timothy Dalton, bemused Bond in George Lazenby, smooth Bond in Pierce B now we welcome the world to barrowboy Bond. And he's not really eye candy for the fairer sex, lets be honest. And for gods sake, does anyone really wear those swimming trunks? In his acting style he is an intense, superb classical actor with an intense credibility but with the romantic skills of Gollum.

The story has gone micro here. Whereas before we've had Blofeld and company wanting nothing less than to rule the world, here we have accounting villain. Like Enron but on a much, much smaller scale. But the screenplay by Paul Haggis (CRASH 9/10) is good, crisp, witty and a pleasure to view.

The main villain played by uber Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen has lost a couple of bucks because of Bond's interference and is trying to win it back. And he doesn't even cheat!! What kind of villainy is that? I want my money back! (or rather he does). In the Bond villain stakes he's a little too human, but I guess that's what the director wanted to convey.

And the Bond girls are either beautiful and can't act (Caterina Murino) or can act and just don't cut it in the gorgeous stakes (Eva Green). She is more goth than gorgeous.

Where this film really takes off is in the action sequences. There are some spectacular set pieces including the most breath taking chase I've ever seen. If you've seen better, please let me know. This film is as exhausting as a trip to the gym with the side benefit of popcorn. And comfy chairs.

Judi Dench plays Dame Judi Dench as always. (Shouldn't she have played THE QUEEN?). And thankfully no John Cleese as Q. I love the Python's to a fault but him as Q was utterly gratuitously pointless.

Some of the product placement was a little ungracious. (A rolex? No Omega.) And I guess we'll all want Sony Ericsson's after this. And Bond driving a Ford (Maybe if he's been tied up and put in the boot..) But the star product of course was the Aston. After the BMW's tacky range its a welcome return.

Overall an interesting addition to the genre.
A much better James Bond than I expected
soniagechevarria8 December 2006
I must honestly admit that this James Bond has greatly surprised me very much for different reasons. Before watching the film I expected a weak and confusing James Bond but everything changed when I saw the film. Apart from being an excellent actor, Daniel Craig portrays a new and different Bond. He is different to the others, neither better nor worse than the previous actors, what makes him different to the others, apart from his appearance, is his acting. He is more violent and perhaps more masculine (with the exception of Sean Connery) than the others, and he is also more serious but with a little bit of irony in his eyes. This movie is worth watching and Daniel Craig is excellent as the new James Bond. Good luck for him!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best of the Best Bond Flicks Ever!
jamie-kim27 November 2006
Daniel Craig is Superb! Effective! Complex! The most awesome combination of courageous/brave and tender hearted compassion in any man! He injects a fresh charisma, glorious multiplexed aspect of human nature. My friends and I agreed, he is the ultimate man!

Eva Green is hauntingly beautiful and creates wonderful energy and chemistry with Daniel Craig. The best scene is the shared tenderness "Shower Scene."

Judi Dench resonates authoritarian, power, veiled in the complexity of a woman of maturity and experience.

Kudos to the stunt crew! Especially Sebastien Foucan!!! Chris Cornell's theme song is perfect.

You will not be disappointed. This blows all other action adventure spy films out of the water. Bye bye to the Bourne adventures, the new Bond rocks and kicks some hard core butt!!!
8/10
Bond as we know him?
gaiter8818 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is a great film. Two things though: 1. Surely this should not have been classified as a 12a. There was a group of seven year olds sitting in front of me in the cinema (with their adults) and surely they shouldn't have been allowed to see the film (I'm thinking particularly of the torture and fight scenes).

2. This is a great film, but it isn't a Bond film. Not because of the story line, the action sequences or Craig's acting ability (he is superb), but because he isn't 007. It's not the new emotional side (I think that's good) or indeed any part of Craig's interpretation of the role, it is simply that he lacks the X (or if you like 007) factor. This might sound stupid, but I think the best way to sum it up is that Bond should make the suite look good, not the other way around!
10/10
James Bond for the 21st Century
tghoneyc17 November 2006
After all the controversy Daniel Craig has proved his mettle as a Bond for the new generation of moviegoers.

Darker, more realistic in tone, "Casino Royale" is the long-awaited adaptation of Ian Fleming's first book chronicling the adventures of 007, everyone's favorite British superspy. If it weren't for the necessity of introducing the spy as though he never existed, I don't know if Craig, a fine actor in his own right, would have been so impressionable had he been in just the next in the long-running franchise. That they quite explicitly are starting over, makes more sense in terms of who Bond is and what he's about.

The film is less humorous than other movies, but a lot of the humor does stem from the sly references to the long-standing, immediately recognizable facets of what makes Bond Bond. "Shaken or stirred?" "Does it look like I give a damn?" Vesper Lynd in her introduction to Bond "I'm the Money." "And worth every Penny." Craig, in addition to turning in one of the best post-Connery Bonds, is, like Connery, an actor with considerable range. He's also got a bit of a following already. He's still a womanizer who, in this case, fancies married women, who are by nature lonely and dependent on their spouses. Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) is, in this case, everything Bond dislikes about women: cold, confident, and single--in essence, she is exactly like him. A great scene transpires where they analyze each other's character based on first impressions, nailing several qualities about each other that is symbolic of things to come. Thankfully, the scriptwriters did not have to go far to make Vesper a modern woman, as Fleming's own description of her was that she was beautiful with brains.

Mads Mikkelsen, ever the character actor, imbues the treacherous Le Chiffre with all sorts of eccentricities. Asthmatic, with an eyelid that weeps blood, he is also seen as a pawn in a much larger game. Desperate for money, and with investors out for blood, he is prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in their good graces.

The action scenes are exciting and full of amazing stuntwork, especially in the beginning, when Bond pursues a bomb-maker through a construction site. Non-actor Sebastien Foucan does some amazing acrobatic stuntwork, slipping his tall body through vents and making enormous vaults and leaps, where Bond has to improvise quite heavily to catch up with him.

Most of the movie is spent trying to figure out who James Bond is. And we are left satisfied. If the movie seems to drag a little too long, it is worth it, just to hear him say the most famous line of the whole franchise.

While Brosnan's suave portrayal of Bond as a dinosaur of the Cold War period worked well, here Craig gives us a man more atuned to modern cynicism and vulnerability, when the enemy is more elusive.
Fine movie, yet not daring enough
flipshoes30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yes, "Casino Royale" is a most enjoyable film, its star delivers a very fine performance as 007, it mostly follows the traditional James Bond movie recipe for success, its cinematography and editing are (as usual) flawless, and even though the movie is rather long, it has a very good build-up of tension, so you're amazed to realize two and a half hours have passed when the end credits appear.

However, there are two things which I feel obliged to criticize (of course reflecting my personal views, nothing else): Firstly, what bothered me most about the movie was the fact that it related to James Bond's beginnings (thus paying a tribute to Ian Fleming's first novel), yet it was set in 2006. Of course, this is highly illogical, even if the retro-look of the film's beginning (black and white, with the gun barrel sequence only appearing at the end of the pre-credits sequence - quite unusual, in fact!) implies that the character of James Bond is still a young beginner.

It would have been much more interesting to have "Casino Royale" take place in, say, 1958 or what-have-you, but anyway prior to the first James Bond film "Doctor No" (1962), thus making it the story of young James Bond (magnificently portrayed by Daniel Craig) winning his spurs. This would have turned "Casino Royale" into a kind of costume film: Wouldn't this have been a much more daring, yet fascinating approach?

Instead, we are presented the whole load of - (in 2006) unfortunately inevitable, yet incredibly dull - techno-mumbo-jumbo with people tracking others down due to cell phones or being logged into databases via laptops. I think that technical stuff gets rather boring in the long run. Moreover, it adds nothing to the story. The real highlights of the movie are those Fleming wrote back in 1953: a thrilling casino sequence with plenty of psychology, a fiendish torture scene, a female companion who turns out to be a traitor. These are the basic ingredients of the story, let's face it, the rest is rather dispensable.

Second critizism: I am not particularly enthusiastic about David Arnold's score (and that includes the incredibly dull title song, too). I think this movie should have had a subtle score comparable to John Barry's substantial "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" soundtrack music (1969). As always, Arnold tries to copy Barry's style (and to some extent, successfully, especially in action scenes) but unfortunately he does not come up with melodic material comparable to any of John Barry's.

If you listen to the music, it mostly leaves a frantic impression, with some fairly uninteresting and rather indistinguishable softer moments in between. Hardly ever is there any melodic strain which I would really consider worthwhile remembering; nothing even remotely comparable to, say, Barry's "We have all the time in the world". Incidentally, the best part of the "Casino Royale" score isn't even originally by Arnold - it's his end title arrangement of Monty Norman's James Bond Theme.
5/10
Now you can tell all your friends that you died scratching my balls.
falcradine24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
and oh what balls Mr Bond has in this film!

Pleased to see that at last the correct recipe for the Bond Martini is given "Three parts vodka to one part gin and half measure of kina lillet and a twist of lemon poured over ice"

Whilst the film is one big advert for Sony ;Sony Erickson;Ford;Branson(he has a cameo role)and Virgin the fabulous locations still look good but three words that came to mind when I came out of the cinema was trite, hackneyed and boring - quite unlike the original book!

Daniel Craig was superb. He is an excellent actor with incredible fitness and stamina with a great physique - what a role model.

The torture scene, whilst eye watering, was nail biting stuff excellently executed.

Again, whilst the plot is fairly true to the original book you do get the impression, at times, whether there is a plot at all.

The card game was too complicated whilst not being a card player myself most people are referring to it as Poker thought Fleming went out of his way to explain how the game of baccarat ( 21 or twist?) works.The game should have been better explained in the film.

There were no really good car chases like the Bourne supremacy despite having the vehicles to do it although the overturning Aston Martin Vanquish was a brilliant piece of filming.

So far as the other actors are concerned worthy of note are Le Chiffre who was excellent and Vesper Lynd who was pretty average but did a reasonable job albeit unconvincing.

Overall the impression that was left was of a film that was decidedly mediocre albeit with the feeling that when I see this again I will really like it and give it a higher overall rating.

Let's hope Daniel Craig is here to stay.
9/10
Simply brilliant!
cyber_tyrant28 November 2006
I didn't expect much before i sat to watch the movie, but the movie changed my mind. The action was fantastic but when the Austin Martin got trashed, i admit i cried. Daniel Craig was brilliant because the script actually demanded 007 to be 'egoistic'. He had lots of ego and character. I admit that Daniel is not your typical amazingly good looking Bond like Brosnan or Connery but he has the style, the personality and the body. The Bond girls on the other hand, could have chosen better actresses, maybe one with a bit more 'Halley Berry' if you know what i mean. Anyway, hats off to Bond, they did a swell job! I hope Daniel Craig does the next Bond movie too, i would love to see him play the role again.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Daniel Craig Is A Bond With style
chrisrobbins-218 November 2006
I just got out of the theater and I must say, I am quite impressed with Daniel Craigs performance in Casino Royale. I went with quite a few doubts but I came out with high hopes for Bond 22.

This Bond movie is captivating, stylish and clever which is a very rare thing with most action adventure movies now today. Yet Daniel Craig has accomplished what most actors could not. He was very original, humorous, and a great James Bond.

This was a very mysterious movie, and kept you guessing till the end. If you think you know what is going on, you are probably wrong. Also, the action sequences were very moving and quite clever to say in the least. James did some intense fighting and was always coming up with another way of staying ahead of his enemies.

Overall: This is the movie of the year, besides Pirates and Superman, but is still as good, if not better than those two. Don't take my word for it, go see Casino Royale and at least give Daniel Craig a chance. You won't be disappointed or sorry.
10/10
Best Bond since Sean Connery
acburnham5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is everything you want Bond to be: ruggedly handsome, sarcastic, almost always smarter than the bad guy, unbelievably tough (endures a torture scene -- all implied of course -- that makes the women cringe on his behalf), and completely ripped with his shirt off.

He brings some of the uncertainty of Sean Connery's early Bond back to the character. Craig's Bond lacks the COMPLETE polish and finesse of other post-Connery Bonds: he makes mistakes AND falls in love. He's human.

I will always have a VERY warm place in my heart for Pierce Brosnan (in any part -- not just Bond), by Daniel Craig makes my blood boil.
7/10
Poor story, great action, superb Bond!
to_kill_better19 November 2006
Let's be honest, Sean Connery had it easy. He was making a cold war spy thriller during the cold war itself. Nothing had dated, nothing needed modernising: he was making a period film set in the period he was living in. Is it any wonder he was always considered the best Bond?

It's been much harder for the later actors to make the role their own, but Daniel Craig has succeeded. Combining Sean Connery's rough-around-the-edges charm with Timothy Dalton's steely-eyed ruthlessness and adding a good measure of something new: military hard-man dangerousness! While Roger Moore, as always, played Bond as a charming dandy and Pierce Brosnan played him as a slimy Americanized business executive, Daniel Craig is the very picture of a field-tested military officer. Someone you might genuinely feel safe trusting to safeguard your country. Aside from making Bond "hard" again, Craig also delivers Bond's charm with great confidence. Rather than hamming up his lines for laughs in the Moore/Brosnan fashion or playing down his charming side like Dalton, Craig delivers a genuinely believable sly wit which gets the audience on side immediately.

Eva Green is also superb as "Bond girl" Vesper Lynd. Not a helpless dumb blonde waiting to be bedded by Bond or a PC-pleasing hard-woman, Green is attractive, composed, charming and human. She is possibly the first genuinely *attractive* rather than just beautiful Bond girl.

Sadly, despite great turns from the two leads, the film doesn't provide a quality backdrop for their top-notch performances. The action scenes are very well-handled and exciting but the story often seems nothing more than a series of things that happen in sequence rather than a plot per se. The card-playing scenes are badly handled with very little tension built up. They should possibly have edited the dull and unnecessary action scene at the airport and spent more time building tension in the card games. Some of the use of technology in the film is unnecessary and clearly added gratuitously to please gadget-fans.

On the whole, this is a very enjoyable action film, but not a well-made spy thriller (which is what the Bond franchise really needs!). People who enjoy Bond for the camp-factor, with cheesy camp humour and self-aware parody will probably enjoy this much less than some of the other movies, but the lack of camp made me enjoy it a whole lot more.

And Daniel Craig is a superb Bond.
10/10
All in all...a great movie!
athanassia_voulieri29 November 2006
We had reached a point where the gadgets(and generally the technology) and the action scenes had prevailed against the latest Bond movies so we either had to see Bond at his earliest stages or watch him die...and I'm glad that he didn't die!I believe that Daniel brought a whole new image to James Bond and his talent along with his body (which was worked out properly for the action scenes) and killer look were perfectly supported by a great screenplay and direction which lead the production to offer us an unforgettable James with which I fell in love with all over again! Congratulations to everyone that worked on this movie!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Possibly the best Bond yet
timlloydskinner29 November 2006
I went to see this film on the Thursday before it came out and I loved it. You can see how James Bond develops as a double 0 agent throughout the story. He makes mistakes, he falls for a girl, but, he learns. You see him develop as a character and Daniel Craig does a brilliant job of this. I hate to admit it but I was not sure of him when he was offered the role but I take it all back now as I don't think I've ever enjoyed a Bond film as much and I've seen them all. The film was reasonably long compared to many other Bond films yet despite the uncomfortable seating in the cinema I did not want it to end.

In conclusion, see it.........you will regret not doing so. I was very skeptical but my eyes were opened. I have since hired out as many Daniel Craig films as possible as he is just so cool!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not back to best form as such,more setting new standards of it's own
alex-wilmot20 November 2006
Like many here i should say i'm a fan & someone who's also read the books. Also like many i was losing interest as it all got too campy/flashy & indistinguishable from other big budget action heroes.

I wasn't worried when DC was announced,just curious to see how the choice would pan out.

I for one believe it's a triumph. It's true to the books & re-injects some much needed gritty realism to the franchise. DC has the ice cool demeanour of someone who could charm the pants off you whilst at the same time have no hesitation in disembowelling you with a toothpick if the need arises.

He has the physical presence,the versatility & the sense of humour to pull it off,although it should be said the jokes are less frequent & more 'arch',even to the point of having a dig at previous scripts. This only added to what was a rebirth of a great character rather than trying to do the same thing again.

Good supporting cast,good locations & storyline & great action - again much grittier & hard edged. You really wouldn't fancy taking him on,which surely is how it should be for 007?
5/10
well crafted beginning but...
phillav29 November 2006
this film was very disappointing, when i first watched the movie it was all hyped up thinking it would be just as good as all the previous editions to the series, but no sir-ie, the first scene admittedly was well crafted the director obviously showed his spacial awareness and creativity when producing the chase scene; which in my opinion is the best part of the film, but i would not go to see the film just for that part!Bond showed a side of him that had not been seen before this is, i suppose, a little controversial and is perhaps why some people may not agree with how it was put together. however after that initial scene there was nothing much to see beyond a lot of Daniel Craig's body, no car chases, no gadgets, none of the usual cheeky one liners that Brosnan or Connery are famous for having an innate ability for achieving. Daniel Craig gives a certain toughness to the character of Bond, which is well overdue but should not be at the interference of keeping the original sarcastic/cheeky temperament that his character requires. Craig does also give a convincing confidence, obviously needed for his Bond like persona.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
''Kafana poslasticarnica''
sarabubasara23 November 2006
James Bond Casino Royale surprised me so nicely. I am very pleased with it. Movie starts like unreal cartoon of Tom And Jerry but it finishes, like serious movie, truly emotional, serious and entertaining.

Daniel Craig is just brilliant. Blondy-Bondy , but Bond, James Bond. I am apologizing because I thought that he is not good for Bond. He is not good. He is brilliant.

Eva Green...What can I say?With her special make up like in Kingdom of Heaven she looks good and she acts good.

Storyline is more than good.

And now, what I didn't like. I am from Montenegro, small country in Balcan now fully independent country , but still not ready for Europe. Movie makers made Montenegro look like Switzerlad and Rome. Train is...????Trains in Montenegro are awful, and here they made it to look like spaceship. Then, hotels like ''Vranac'' what is actually a vine, coffee bar ''Kafana poslasticarnica'' what does actually mean ''Bar Bar with cake''. It is like saying ''Toilet CloseT.'' No matter how did Montenegro looked like, I was proud. Really proud. Lazar Ristovski, a Serbian actor is just moving around place, not saying one word. Here , where I live in Serbia , Belgrade newspapers wrote that he is acting in new James Bond blah, blah, blah...But he is stating.

Good movie, naive action scenes in beginning, emotional, very good movie.
2/10
Is this a Bond movie?
Gavin_NZ12 January 2022
It seems more like an attempt at a touchy feely soap opera drama with a few hand to hand combat scenes thrown in. The only thing positive i can say is the aforementioned fight scenes were quite intense. It fails miserably on all other levels. I get that the idea was to strip it right back down to its core of a (very human) tough guy spy movie, closer to the original incarnation but in the process it loses its 'Bondness' and everything we've come to love about the franchise. All due respect to its creator but the original Bond was rather one dimensional and bland. He has since evolved into something much bigger and better. All the staple fun stuff has been sucked out now, like the cutting edge gadgets, the over the top chases, the strategically placed theme music and the evil megalomaniac villain, oh and did I mention the gadgets? Let's face it, Daniel Craig is a good actor but he is definitely no Bond. As I a die hard fan of the franchise, this is very disappointing.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Casino Royale.. 007 Great Again
cooper1420 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I got around to seeing the latest 007 movie last weekend, honestly before I was to see it for myself I didn't know what to expect. Truth be told I didn't expect it to be much good, but was I wrong.. too wrong. What a movie, this has got it all and Daniel Craig is brilliant he captures the Bond persona perfect. Another good performance by Dame Judi Dench (as M) and Craig's unforgettable start as the new 007 was excellent. I'm not going to lie I've seen many of the Bond films and this is one of the best maybe the best. Don't mean to ruin it for those of you who haven't seen the movie yet but the scene that got me laughing was the one which involved the lines "Sorry.. but that last hand nearly killed me." if you've seen it you'll know what scene I'm talking about. Cannot wait for the next 007 film to be released in 2008 which is Bond 22 (working title, most likely to be named 'Rosicio') bring on the next 007.. if Casino Royale is this good then the next should be awesome.
6/10
James Bond
danielcraig530 November 2006
I believe Daniel Craig looks more like the villain of the film rather than the hero.

However, he brings an excellent grittiness to the role that has been missing since Sean Conerry's outings as Bond.

I think that they need to go back to the original formula with gadgets etc. but don't let these dictate the plot, they should simply help Bond escape from tricky situations.

I also believe that a male M is required to spark a new dynamic between Bond and his superiors. Judi Dench is not imposing enough to act as a figure of authourity that can send someone to their death.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Rough & Real Reboot
nobodylikesapedant2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So here it is. Bond #21. It promised to be gritty, rough and real. Casino Royale succeeded - and is a true reboot for the series.

New Bond Daniel Craig was a controversial decision among Bond fans. Would he be able to do the job? There were fears, yes - but they have proved to be unfounded. Craig is a more real Bond than predecessors. He is a man who is not completely stable, a bit on-edge - and it shows. In fact, Bond is no longer a super-spy unable to come to harm. The torture scene highlights his imperfection (and will also make male viewers wince).

Gadgets have been stripped from the film to make it more realistic (though product placement means Bond uses a Sony Viao laptop and a Sony digital camera). This means Bond uses proper methods of being a spy. Visceral fights, dare-devil driving and the like. It all makes for a more enjoyable watch, especially after the utter fantasy of Die Another Day's invisible Aston Martin.

The film focuses on Bond's first real mission as a double-O agent. By the gun barrel shoot, Bond has made his first two kills (one in elegant style, the other is a fight in a toilet which succeeds in proving that Craig is up to the job). His mission involves playing poker, against villain Le Chiffre. On the way, he meets up with Vesper Lynd, the primary Bond Girl of Casino Royale. To cut a long film short, Bond wins the poker game, but is betrayed by Vesper.

But some questions are raised, thanks to the film being a prequel in sequel form. Female M, played by Dame Judi Dench, is in Brosnan's Bond's universe. But here, she is giving Bond his double-O licence to kill. This supports some people's arguments that "James Bond" is the name given to MI6's best spy at the time, and this certainly would account for this and the changing face of Bond. Whether or not this is acceptable or not is irrelevant.

Basically, Casino Royale is a brand new Bond. And, if this outing is anything to go by, new Bond should carry on.
7/10
back to a good action film
nzbdad30 December 2006
The film combines a good story, good acting, and some excellent stunts to produce a pleasing action movie. For a change, the stunts seemed to be things a human could do (barely). There was some poor logic in the script particularly during gambling scenes. They reduced the effectiveness of the film since I found myself thinking, "that's silly." I didn't personally feel the female lead had the sexual firepower required for her role. The end of the film was first rate. The final scene and the final line of dialog were knockouts and reminded me of part of the appeal of some of the early Bond films. The Bond character seems more like the one I remember from reading some of the books years ago. He was completely committed to his job which he did impersonally using his intelligence and considerable athletic ability. He was also very lucky.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Poker, Poker, and more Poker
jakens-403218 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you enjoy watching special agents play poker for extended periods of time, you might enjoy this movie. This movie felt incredibly long, and when I thought the movie was finally coming to a close, there was still an additional 20-40 minutes remaining.
8/10
A new James Bond
crash-forward2 December 2006
After having seen just about any James Bond film there is, today I saw Casino Royale in the theater. At first I was a little skeptical about the film, because good old Pierce had been replaced with a new guy. Though Pierce was not my favourite James Bond (Sean Connery is my all time favourite), Daniel Craig looked too much like he had run out of a B-action boxing movie. In the end I really liked this film, because it was far more than I expected. The action in this movie is incredible, especially the scene where James is chasing some guy jumping cranes and stuff in the first part of the movie and it continues throughout the film. But the best part about the film is the fact that the story is a lot more sophisticated than the previous ones. In the old James Bond movies it was always clear who the real bad guys were and it ended with Bond being at their secret base blowing things up. The story of this Bond is much more sophisticated.

Unfortunately the new Bond takes time to get used to. In the early days Bond was always the English gentleman, but the new Bond is different. Heis not as sympathetic as Roger Moore, Sean Connery or even Pierce Brosnan. He has become a kind of big headed (American?) and does not have the sophistication that for example Roger Moore had. He misses the 'Bond'-factor that is so typical for James Bond. The new Bond doesn't care if his "Wodka Martini" is shaken or stirred. Another thing that I also missed in this film are the gadgets that Bond uses. For example, the cars James drove in the previous films were packed with all kind of gadgets, but in this film the idiot crashes his Aston Martin before he can even push a botton.

Still I can recommend everybody to go to this film. Especially the improved story is something that makes this movie to an excellent movie. Is it really a James Bond movie? I'm not sure. Is it a good movie? Definitely.
Craig a good Bond, but....
jacob-4519 November 2006
Full marks to Daniel Craig giving a great performance in Casino Royale but the producers have let the franchise down by worrying too much about whether Craig can do it and not enough about the script and production. It seems silly so far into the franchise to start At the beginning. There was no need for that, it could have quite easily carried on where the last left off. where was the rifle barrel at the beginning of the movie? My favorite thing to get me in the mood for the movie. The title song was a load of garbage, nothing to do with the bond style of music. The music score was equally bad. Please bring back John Barry. The opening title sequence was rubbish, could have been done on a home computer... probably was. Oh Maurice binder where are you (dead)?

The action scenes where good ,a nd there is some good dialogue but it seems to me that since the death of Cubby Broccoli things have not always gone in the right direction. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson seem not have learned from their time around Cubby.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Well Done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Craig realist Bond to date
Joker2253 December 2006
I Saw the movie 12-2-06 at ten o'clock it was an impressive film very true to the novel. exploring the career of a young bond was a good idea great writing behind this film is what made it so good it was an intriguing action film. The gambling was i'd say cool, a Lil more action would have made this perfect but in all it was an explosive look at how bond started off just getting promoted to 00 status. The acting was excellent Daniel Craig is the realist James Bond ever his style is somewhat of a Gangster than a 00 agent what made it even better he brought something to the role it didn't have great Bond. No High tech gadgets and special effects just real all the way threw this is how a 007 film should be martin Campbell deserves praise for his reinvestment of the entire franchise for the better. I Enjoyed the movie it was the best bond to date the stunts the acting the writing the directing made this a well done 007 film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Tedious non-Bond
andrew-prince-121 November 2006
Not that I didn't like parts of it. The opening action scene despite going on almost too long, was expertly crafted, with a nice Parkour demonstration - but not by Bond I have to add. From then on the action switch was either fully on or off. When it was on it was good, but the interim scenes for some reason seemed to drag interminably, maybe because of the distinct lack of a decent Bond girl, or dry humour, I couldn't put my finger on it. But then the movie didn't contain an ounce of suspense, I couldn't have cared less about the characters, even if I did know what they were up to. Bond sports a perma-pout throughout the film that would put even Posh Beckham to shame, although I have to say I do approve of Daniel Craig as Bond, it's a shame for him the writing for the movie sucked. The poker game although central to the film went on tediously long, and found myself wishing the whole film would end on more than one occasion, so I could get out. Dull, tedious and not a James Bond film at all, more of a non-descript actioner with crass product placement (thanks Sony Vaio). They should have cast Patrick Swayze and called it The Shooty Gambler or something. Boo.
10/10
Best Bond Ever!
wildchipmunk29 November 2006
I, like others, was rather hesitant to embrace Daniel Craig when his casting was first announced. Let me be the first to admit my error -- this man is sexy as hell and the most -- dare I say it -- MANLY Bond ever. Not macho, but a Real Man: one who considers his actions, sometimes with remorse but always with bravery and intelligence. Craig has screen presence like no other Bond before him. This is not Connery's dapper dandy or Moore's misogynistic male, but an altogether new creature. And,oh, those eyes!

Open note to Daniel Craig: if a pair of panties ever come sailing at your head...they'll probably be mine.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Enjoyable, Not Entirely Believable Though
bg112154 December 2006
I loved the movie, except for some of the violence, much of it I thought unnecessary. I felt that Daniel Craig and Eva Green didn't have much chemistry together, and their romance I certainly didn't find believable. Thought the ending could have been better. But I thought most of the dialog was good, the pace of the movie was good. The opening sequence was a bit long, could have been cut in half by editing and would have improved the story overall. And a few other things here and there, like, Eva Green wasn't really using her vocal instrument. In most of her dialog, she spoke with a raspy, throaty voice, almost like she was whispering. She did have some charisma though; she reminded me a little bit of Bette Davis, both in looks and technique. I wonder if she studied Miss Davis's mannerisms? Judy Dench was great as M, perfect for the role. And Daniel Craig is a hottie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Read Casino Royale - will help you enjoy
arvy7 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
although outdated, the book is a very good read. and a fair insight into why this Bond is different to the Connery/Moore/Brosnan bond.

The first half is a bit slow and moody, but the second half of CR is superb.

Set against the backdrop of the casino (in glorious Montenegro) the relationship between Bond and the main female actress (Vesper) is beautifully constructed.

This is a much tougher Bond, very few gadgets (one really saves his life) and a Bond, just like the book, who isn't sure about his "hired gun" status as a new "00".

The opening kill (one of the 2 required to get a "00") is gritty and unlike the sauve Bond kills you may be familiar with.

Worth watching, but not always the glamour of previous Bonds.
10/10
Casino Royale- Incredible!
FreddieLee0426 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie has everything. -Le Chiffre is amazing. He is understandibly desperate for money and we as an audience can see where he is coming from. -The action scenes are Well-Shot, edited and performed. -Craig is fierce and ruthless as Bond but his heart melts over Vesper Lynd. -Vesper Lynd and James Bond's romance is so interesting and heart warming -The Movie isnt too long or short.

Just Perfect
8/10
Bloody Good
Kate_Dammit_Run17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This ain't your father's Bond. There are no wristwatch dart guns or ski-ing cars. The closest we get to a gadget is a dashboard defibrilator and an injectable RFID tag. There are no campy world domination villains. What we have are terrorists and their financiers. Gone if the foppish James Bond of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. Daniel Craig plays Bond as a brutal, brooding agent just starting out.

Craig is brilliant as Bond. He plays him as a brutal killer, the first death we see in the movie involves Bond drowning someone. Bond is a womanizer, but with a hard edge. He's not suave and smooth but runs on an animal sexuality that can be as much of a turn off as a turn on. This is Bond starting out, reckless, rough, and raw. He's not the seasoned professional of previous Bonds but rather a young and talented hot head who can cause as much trouble for his superiors as for his enemies. Craig plays Bond as sledghammer rather than a scalpel. When a man he is chasing jumps over a wall Bond simply runs through it. In the tradition of Mel Gibson actioners Craig plays a hero who isn't afraid to take a beating, and the film includes a truly painful torture scene.

The plot owes more to Alias than to the over the top schemes of Dr No or Moonraker. Bond isn't trying to save the world. Instead he's trying to track down and flip a terrorist financier known as Le Chiffre. When Bond foils one of his money making schemes Le Chiffre organizes a high stakes poker game to make back his clients money and Bond bids in. The film contains some great actions scenes and Craig brings a physicality to Bond which has been missing. Hopefully we can look forward to many new movies in this vein of Bond.
10/10
Great Bond
tiggerbrunton12 January 2007
Fantastic movie, great escapism. This is how James Bond movies should be! Daniel Craig is fantastic as Bond, Eva Green is achingly beautiful. Anyone that thinks that Craig can't fill the shoes of Bond needs to put their head in a blender. Craig definitely has an edge to bring to the role.

Hard gritty action far, far, far removed from the camp nonsense that Bond frequently returns to (Moonraker, Die another Day).

Fantastic free-running sequence filled with stunts that make you go 'OUCH'!

More please.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Finally: a Bond true to the books
justiceforall22 November 2006
Ever since I began reading the Bond books a couple of years ago I've been pining after a film that would accurately reflect Ian Fleming's cold-hearted, faintly psychotic spy, and finally this has been delivered by "Casino Royale". Although it bears some of the hallmarks of previous Bond adventures, this really does feel like a fresh start, with a much more serious tone and a much more cynical view.

I won't discuss the plot, as I don't want to give away any spoilers, but suffice to say it's very gripping and suspenseful, and includes most of the events that occur in the book. The Director Martin Campbell has produced a film every bit as good as his first Bond revival, "GoldenEye", even though he adapts his style to the new kind of story on display here. The action sequences are astonishing, and benefit from being 'real' rather than the CGI tosh from "Die Another Day".

Much has been written about Daniel Craig, so all I will say is that he is excellent in the role, and really develops the character throughout the film. I will however say that I thought the best performance came from Eva Green, who is simply sublime as Vesper Lynd, and brings great depth to her character. This is the first time I can remember being moved by a Bond film, and a lot of that really is down to the efforts of the actors.

So, to sum up: go see. Probably the best mainstream film I've seen all year, and the best Bond for a long time... perhaps ever?
8/10
Bond Begins with the Best Film of 2006
matthewpr0615 December 2006
If you take Casino Royale out of the context of being a Bond Film and examine it as a stand alone, action-adventure come thriller then you really begin to understand the true brilliance of this film. I've always enjoyed the Bond franchise, although I wouldn't say I was a big fan, more of a casual viewer.

Now, back to the movie. Daniel Craig is a fine actor and his scenes with Eva Green are electric, the dialogue is sharp and witty and the two actors clearly have a lot of chemistry. The first action sequence lasts for about ten minutes and its absolutely fantastic, there is a real sense of speed and danger; Bond bleeds like the rest of us, he is not a superhero in the traditional sense, just a man driven by demons and desires that are revealed later on.

Craig is truly IAN FLEMING'S 007 in a way that all the others (including Connery) were not. Craig is detached, brutal, efficient, dark, cold and above all else; human.

The second action sequence at Miami Airport is OK but I was starting to worry at this point whether the film was going to be a continuous carousel of carnage, rather than an efficient noir thriller. But my worries were elevated when post-Miami airport, Eva Green steps on the scene as the smart and sassy Vesper Lynd.

At the heart Casino Royale are two outstanding central performances from Eva Green and Daniel Craig, they make the dialogue work in a way that lesser actors (Halle Berry and Pierce Brosnan for example) could not. Martin Campbell saved the Bond Franchise in 1995 with Goldeneye and he has revitalised it for the 21st century with a stunning piece of direction, proving that he is an excellent all rounder with an eye for action and the good sense to be conspicuous when the material demands it.

There are flaws in Casino Royale, the rampant product placement for Ford, Jaguar, Omega, Ted Baker, Virgin Airlines and a dozen other companies does distract from the film for those of us who cant help but notice it. Also the incredibly-difficult-to-make-entertaining central card game does drag on a bit, although Campbell deserves a Knighthood, Oscar and a Congressional Medal of Honour for making it almost work by punctuating it with action sequences, one of which is an extremely violent fight in a stairwell that doesn't belong in a 12A movie.

That brings us neatly to the torture sequence which is lifted straight from the Ian Fleming novel. There is some fine acting by Craig again in this scene, more so than in any other part of the movie. Its brutal but also, rather perversely, gives the film its biggest laugh out loud moment, "the whole world will know you died scratching my balls".

The movie hits another rough patch with the post-torture romance scenes that follow. Again, this is lifted straight from the book and although for viewers with a short attention span it may drag on, I found them as enjoyable as any of the big explosions and fisticuffs.

The finale packs an emotional punch, again solely down to Eva and Daniel and the fact that we actually believe in their relationship and have invested some emotion in it. Its a relationship that can save Bond from a life of vodka martinis, easy lays and silenced Walther PPK's. But it just wasn't to be, and when the finale finally arrives we see the real James Bond for the very first time.

Now, I know a lot of people will accuse Casino Royale of being populist nonsense, or just another Bond film, but those same people probably think that the more boring and obscure a film is, the more intelligent it makes them for bothering to watch it (Ingar Bergman fans go wild!).

For me, Bond Begins is the best movie of the year. I loved every minute of this confident piece of escapist entertainment and I will be buying the DVD as soon as it becomes available.
9/10
This is a great movie!
arggolf20 November 2006
I wasn't sold on Daniel Craig going in to the movie, but I left saying he is this best Bond so far, and this was the best Bond movie i have ever seen. I loved the rigidness of Bond, hardly any gadgets were used, and also that he is a bad ass and not a suave pretty boy. The action was amazing, and not all dolled up with CG affects. This Bond didn't run his mouth the whole movie, as a matter of fact it took quite sometime for him to take place in some real dialogue. The whole premise of Casion Royale is amazing, the cinematography was spot on to say the least. The normal cheesy Bond lines were replaced by ones that you could actually picture a 007 using. In short, this movie was great, go see it!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fantastic!
xpigsu8 January 2022
Having a Bond marathon before we watch the latest.

Daniel Craig is THE James Bond in my honest and humble opinion. He is not a male ideology caricature like his predecessors.

Fantastic story that keeps you gripped.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig + Dalton= the perfect bond
snapnorthern20 November 2006
After watching Casino Royale, there is no doubt in my mind that Daniel Craig gives one of the best portrayals of bond. taking into account the Fleming novels, Craig's representation of Bond is very accurate, which in my mind is the way it should be. I loved the Roger Moore films, but compared to Craig or Dalton in particularly, he is nothing like Ian Fleming's James Bond. Craig might not quite look like the stereotypical bond, yet the fantastic script, along with his acting made this film fantastic. He is ruthless, suave, and human, much like Dalton's interpretation in both The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill. In my mind, the only way you could get the perfect bond now, is to mix Daniel Craig with Timothy Dalton. Combine their looks, and acting ability along with a decent script (which i hope bond 22 will be) and you have the perfect bond.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Excellent Beginning for a New Bond Era
tsakiridis121719 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some people say: "Poker? Really? I don't want to see James Bond playing the quietest game ever!! I want to see him kill and shoot endless bullets!!" Okay, if you insist, you can always watch "Die Another Day" and cry your eyes out.

"Casino Royale" is a total reinvigoration of the "Bond" franchise. Thank you, producers and Martin Campbell for making a great casting choice: Daniel Craig is so "James Bond". I don't care if he doesn't have the dark hair and the tall waist... I don't care if he's not like Sean Connery and not like Ian Flemming's imagination of the character. I care for what "James Bond" stands for, and that's style and persona. Well, I'm here to tell you, Daniel Craig is the best at both. And I would like to take a moment here and congratulate him for proving anyone who questioned him wrong.

I never thought I would see this character developed so uniquely anytime in the future. Watching the previous ones, I expected that all followers would rehash and redo everything again and again. But no. The screenplay for "Casino Royale", deferring from all the previous movies (where whether it was bloated and loud or way too long and full of stupid gadgets), this time is focused and it takes its time. "M" is fully embraced as the MI6 leader (although Judi Dench's acting is the main reason why), the villain has a purpose and actually stands on his own, and of course James Bond is so decisive, pitiful where he has to, ruthless when he has to, steamy when he owes to and quiet when demanded.

This movie is also exploring several aspects of our protagonist that we never really got to see before. Specifically we get to see Bond's first mission and Bond actually bonding with someone and falling (trully) in love. Both are interpreted in such a great way, we finally get to sympathize with him on tough and mellow times in his life.

And speaking of mellow... Eva Green is lure, enticing and excellent chosen to play Vesper. If you wondered whether the great James could actually fall for someone, I can't see anyone else than her. I left her for the end because the movie left her for the end. Using her character as a way to emphasize and, in a way, question Bond's feelings, Martin Campbell makes time irrelevant for the last 20 minutes of the film to make us see something of the weaker and vulnerable side of the great Bond. He is supposed to not let feelings get in the way of his business. And yet, it all matters all of a sudden. Those last 20 minutes are actually what made the film successful. Smartly constructed, the film elevates Bond, not by taking him higher but by making him grounded to our surprise. By the end, Bond introduces himself like he does for 30-40 years now, but this is one of the times (like yesteryear) where the movie has ended and we have learned something.

That James Bond is just like us... except of course when he's the best killer in the world.
6/10
The magnitudes of the successes and failures weren't very great
aforandy16 November 2006
The basic problem would seem to be a poor script, and without a very good script detailing a clever story a film will never do very well. The opening credits were probably the worst part of the film. They appeared to deploy all the technical brilliance of the 1950s, and the backing song was dire enough that its clear why this was the first time I heard it, and it'll also be the last. If Daniel Craig intended to portray a charmless, rough and uncouth proto-Bond who picks up married women and kills people in lavatories in between making beginner's mistakes then he did very well indeed. Mads Mikkleson was better than most and could have swopped his character's unexplained name with his own, profitably, and the fact Eva Green was there at all proves she can beat out the rest before she puts in a good acting performance. Judi Dench got it right this time for the first time, thank you script, so the sexist turd of the previous films turns into a spymaster with a brain who'll hopefully stick around for a while longer. Best of all the fantasy/comedy element of post-Connery Bond has gone, thank God. It just shows that some of the worst problems in life will disappear if you wait 35 years. There were, however, some basic failures: the story didn't enrapture me even if you try to pretend it hung together. Like the opening animations, it was all rather low-octane, and like a two-stroke Trabant engine it occasionally stuttered in manner that couldn't be overlooked. Perhaps worst of all I started feeling sorry for M. Le Chiffre, on several occasions. It was refreshing for Vesper to join in a punch-up, but somehow I got the impression her eagerness for the fray, and her subsequent willingness to bang a bad guy's gun hand against the floor, could only be based on a desire to protect British taxpayer's money! and so I smiled :(

It could be said the film is a series of scenes without much continuity. There are a lot of Jaguars, made to look ever cheaper by the more elusive Astons and Bentleys, so a product placement too far there. The portable DC defibrillator in the dashboard was merely silly, and this can't count as a spoiler since no one would believe it till they see it. Bond says "please" and "thank you" a lot, as if he's just completed the MI6 gentleperson's "nice" course. The film appeared to have no soul of tempo, or overall cohesion, as different periods of it were quite different to others. This, in film-making, is no good.
8/10
Smart, well written, and worth watching
jrjscrumley20 December 2006
Finally, a Bond film that is worth going to!!!

Casino Royale, the latest in the James Bond film series, introduces Daniel Craig as the licensed to kill MI-6 agent. Craig, along with Judi Dench reprising her role as M, lead a well put together cast of interesting and multifaceted characters. The best things are what is not in Casino Royale - no Q, no Moneypenney, no gadgets, and no never-ending puns about sex. This movie gives our generation what we want in a film - realistic high-tech toys, smart writing, a plot line that keeps you wondering, and a Bond that is mysterious, sexy, and NOT superhuman. Watching Craig's version of Bond is a realistic journey into the makings of a killer, a journey filled with mistakes and lessons learned. By far, it the best ending to a Bond movie I have ever seen. Hopefully, the writers and producers will keep it
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond fans won't be disappointed!
doctorkananga19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This is by far one of the best Bonds ever. The past few films have been very mediocre and the formula to the franchise needed change to restore it. Well, this is exactly what happens in CR. First of all, Craig is amazing. And yes, I was one of the haters of him. But he delivers an amazing performance and we see a side to Bond that we have never seen before. There are so many things changed in this film, compared to previous Bonds. The cool film-noir opening, the gun barrel sequence, awesome titles, great villain, three dimensional bond girls, M has more character, no more cheesy CGI action scenes, cool cars, great one-liners, cool twists...basically the entire movie is perfect. So go see this film and you shouldn't be disappointed. If you have any complaints I'd like to here 'em plz. So far the only minor one that I've heard is the title theme and the running time. The title theme is actually pretty good...it's been five films ago since a male sang..about time. The theme also plays well into the well as a score. It gives you that feel of the older bonds. As for the running time, I was completely intrigued throughout the whole film. No more boring, unnecessary scenes. Nothing from the film should have been trimmed down the slightest bit. This is one of the best films of the year (its in my top 3) so plz go see it now1
10/10
Bond as he was meant to be
joesgirljeri20 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
At last, a James Bond movie that's as gritty and action-packed as you would hope. Gone are the silly villains, the CGI special effects (think Brosnan surfing down the face of a calving glacier and try not to let your eyes roll out of your head). There aren't inane female villains with names like "Zenya Onnatop" and Bond delivering silly one-liners. The last few Bond movies have been almost Austin Powers-esquire. But not anymore.

Daniel Craig does a wonderful interpretation of Bond. Since it's a prequel he is a little rough around the edges and the movie does a great job of showing where Bond got some of his quirks and mannerisms (his famous drink for example). The dialog is smooth and believable, sharp and witty. I like how there was genuine fighting and fear, instead of the super-power Bond just smoothly shooting a room full of people and walking away sipping his drink. And this Bond is TOUGH. The action sequences are edge-of-your-seat exciting, the stunts are amazing but realistic and the plot has real tension to it.

From the intense sky-high chase to the very end of the movie, Casino Royale made me want to cheer.
10/10
Lots of action, Keeps you guessing to the end.
jpwhite318 November 2006
Big departure from previous Bond movies. No silly humor. No silly evil people, plenty of snakes in the grass though! It's actioned packed. The most quiet scenes are during Poker sessions which are interspersed with plenty of action. The opening chase scene is a little too fantastic, the rest of the movie is more reasonable. Bond's scars heal at a truly bond like pace, it wouldn't be bond if it didn't push the envelope a little.

A female M played by Judi Dench is an interesting change also. Bond still has his Aston Martin, equipped with 'believable' gadgets.

This is the best Bond movie I have seen in a long time, I think we can safely say Bond is back!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
60%
johnproche4 October 2008
I enjoyed large parts of this film. The action, the mood, the acting and probably the most obvious and important the direction that the story of Bond has taken.

This picture is flawed. Hugely flawed. A film that bases itself so largely on any topic ( in this case poker which takes up a large section of the film) should depict it with much more truth than this film has portrayed. The best lie is one that contains 99% truth.

The poker in this film is ridiculous, outlandish and worse still, is delivered to the audience on a silver spoon. This film could have been a lot lot better if the film hadn't believed it's audience to be idiots. Poker is, especially lately, a very widely played game - and in my summation people would understand the game a lot better than this film gives them credit for.

Some might suggest that this film isn't meant to be believable, however the deadpan seriousness of the film, the lack of traditional wacky gadgets and wackier dialogue would suggest otherwise.

All in all, I enjoyed the twist the story of Bond has taken and anticipate the next movie feverishly, but wish this film had been delivered a little more carefully.
10/10
The Best Bond film in Ages
kctotal25 March 2007
As soon as Daniel Craig was picked as the new Bond, many fans started tearing their hair off in. rage. Nobody was ready for a change, but now, the film has been released and has shut everyone's mouth up.

At the center of the plot is Le Chiffre a terrorist trafficker. Recently promoted Bond is assigned to find him and stop him. However, even when the case seems closed, this nemesis still keeps turning up making this one of most pulse pounding Bond adventures ever.

Don't listen to rumors! This new James Blond is top notch. He may look awkward in a formal dinner jacket, but Daniel Craig handles each action scene with ease. This new Bond cracks a couple of joke every now and then and this suits him well. Even better is Eva Green, who is truly unforgettable as Bond's love interest, Vesper Lynd. Finally a girl with brains! I mean, Halle Berry handled a similar role well, but she doesn't compare. I just wished she knew how to handle a gun. Then there is also Danish superstar Mads MIkkelsen as the rather menacing Le Chiffre. He has an impeccable English accent and this makes it easier for the viewer to comprehend what is being said. Italian model Caterina Murino also has a brief role in the film as Solange. However, her inclusion is unnecessary as she has no crucial role in the story. It's also good to see Dame Judi Dench back as M, but other signature Bond characters such as Q and Ms. Moneypenny are nowhere to be seen.

Apart from very talented acting, the film also has some memorable action sequences. The airport scene may prove to be overlong and pointless, but the brutal torture scene and the final clash in Venice turn out to be excellent. The violence in the movie is quite strong, which is a good thing seeing that barely any blood is shed in many recent action movies.

The screenplay is also very good. In fact it was polished by Crash director Paul Haggis. It packs a dozen of unexpected surprises which sometimes make you stutter in disbelief and dread. However, as I have previously mentioned, the film's most remarkable feat is the touching relationship between Vesper and Bond. The bone-crunching climax had me in tears. Now that is something nearly impossible to achieve! The film's locations are all déjà vu, especially the beautiful beach in Madagascar, which resembles the bay in Cuba which was featured in Die Another Day.

Verdict Overall, the film is a huge triumph especially for newcomer Daniel Craig. However, it is Eva Green's character which ultimately leaves its imprint on you.
8/10
The death of a formula
Bel Ludovic18 November 2006
As a Roger Moore apologist, you'd think I'd hate 'Casino Royale' and Daniel Craig's portrayal of 007. But you'd be wrong. That was the Bond that was right for then, and this is the Bond that's right for the times we live in. The utterly dismal retread of the usual formula in 'Die Another Day' demonstrated that the formula simply had nowhere else to go. Freed from its constraints, this film was much more involving - to the relief of an audience that probably wouldn't be queueing up to see the same old same old.

Daniel Craig is the right man for the job and this is exactly the reinvention that was needed. Judi Dench as M is superb, as always, and the opening titles are the best of the series. Only the excessive product placement reminds the audience of this film's predecessors. But that aside, Casino Royale refreshes the franchise admirably. Let's hope this is the future direction of the series rather than a one-off.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"Casino Royale" Deals a Straight Flush
Saturday8pm5 January 2007
My wife and I just returned from seeing "Casino Royale", and I give this film my wholehearted approval.

For the EON franchise, it's back to basics, the gadgets are no more sophisticated than cell phones and laptops, which just goes to show how much gadgetry has permeated every facet of our society, and instead the story is front and center, as it should be. To be short, this film is right in line with Fleming's cold war spy story "From Russia with Love", and that's a great thing, because many of us are tired of formulaic plots with action supplacing story. The twists and turns consistently support the story rather than reaching implausible dead ends that leave the viewer thinking, "What was that?" Not everything is neatly tied at the end, but one realizes that the outcome will be moot.

There are surprises, and one of the surprises is not that Craig fits the shoes of his character, but the fact that a character is developing here. Not since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" have we seen Bond more vulnerable or accessible. This Bond is human, and while Craig's emotional display mirrors that of Timothy Dalton's performances, Craig's range goes farther. This is exactly what this series has needed for decades, and for once we're not getting a comic book hero with lots of popcorn-spilling chase scenes that pad the running time.

Dame Judi Dench gets some of the best lines, and my only regret is she'll get too old for the part for many more movies. She is a wonderful counterpart to Craig and occupies Bernard Lee's desk proudly.

One wonders, though, if this good combination will last. Obviously, this is the last Fleming novel to be filmed reasonably faithfully, and stories will be left to copycats, so those writers will have large shoes to fill indeed. I hope that no one is considering remaking any of the Connery era films to bring continuity to a nearly 50 year-old series. That would be a most grievous mistake.

"Casino Royale" is a most welcome return to form.

Cheers: Nice update, story, serious tone, realistic, sparer production, suspense, strategy, character studies with wider emotional range, appropriate violence, soundtrack, sensible plot twists, well-placed jokes, casting, direction, set design, film locations.

Caveats: Craig physically villainous, missing familiar series' elements, the last Fleming novel to be filmed.
10/10
Excellent - restart for a tired franchise
welwynrose17 November 2006
I went to see this reluctantly last night - I haven't been to see a Bond film on the big screen for several years - and was blown away Daniel Craig is excellent and so is the film the stunts were more real & the storyline wasn't as far fetched as previous films - this Bond is a back to basics Bond with none of the silly gadgets or the OTT CGI that have ruined more recent Bond films for me - if you have any qualms about going to see this film because of bad press or disappointment with previous films forget them and go and watch this with an open mind you will be pleasantly surprised - overall a really good start for Daniel Craig and I'm actually looking forward to seeing the next Bond movie now - where I haven't really cared before
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A king of a Bond film.
neoren99921 March 2007
Few times has an addition to a franchise brought in so many new viewers. Fewer times has a Bond film lived up to its own hype and stunned so many die hard fans.

Martin Campbell's expert eye comes into play here, bringing to life a script that would have easily turned out bad. Although many a critic have talked about a lack of new directions for a bond film to go, Campbell's direction and WGA's script show this is not certainly not the case.

Daneil Craig has longed been criticized for being a "wimp" and failing to drive a stick correctly. He is comfortable in his portrayal as Bond and he brings a certain kind of confidence to the screen which makes his performance not only believable, but possibly the best Bond portrayal since Connery.

Unfortunately many scenes often have a hint of unbelievability to them, but thankfully the delivery is as smooth as a bullet. This Bond has its share of colorful characters, including a man with a bloody tear. Bond's leading lady, played this time around by the stunningly beautiful Eva Green, is herself a driving force in the film which speaks well of the casting director.

This time around Bond has outdone itself and it shows by the extreme number of positive comments and critic reviews.

Be prepared for an excellent film that will not disappoint. -

8/10
8/10
One Of The Best Bonds.
aklcraigc4 October 2013
Having watched all the James Bond series a few times, I can confidently assert this is one of the better entries in the series. The series needed a change from the rather bland Brosnan era, and we get it in Daniel Craig, he brings a new edge to the enterprise which has really been lacking since Connery, he's not handsome, as such, but you get the feeling he's more than capable of dealing with whatever comes his way, he brings a more layered performance of Bond as opposed to paper thin characterizations we are used to. The action scenes will leave you gasping the first time you see them, such is the intensity, there's obviously a little bit borrowed from the Borne movies here. There seems to be some angst amongst the other reviewers concerning the 'complexity' of the plot and the lack of Bond style kitsch, I would suggest they try reading the book, if that proves too taxing, I guess there are plenty of films like 'Man With The Golden Gun' and 'Die Another Day' to keep such people satisfied. At the time, I thought this movie may signal a rebirth for the Bond franchise, but this has not proved to be true with the plot less 'Quantum of Solace' and the near-miss 'Skyfall'. If only they could all be this good.
9/10
Most exciting Bond but too much product placement
NeilBarnett13 December 2006
I did a very sad thing I watched all previous 007 films on DVD then went to the theatre to watch Casino Royale.

What a difference this film compared with the past 007 adventures. The pace and style of the film is perfect, I didn't think there was a boring bit to it.

Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond his acting skills are shown off with the help of an excellent script; making Bond a much more of a floored character.

Not so much of the cheesiness we have become familiar with from our favourite British spy. But when a one liner is delivered its very sharp.

But my biggest bug with the film is the constant product placement, was the whole Sony product range on show, I think so. But the line on the train regarding watch styles takes the prize.

I can forgive the film for this all in all Casino Royale is a very good film.
9/10
this is the good stuff...
armandcbris18 November 2006
Daniel Craig takes on the iconic role and gives it a good kick in the arse! I just saw this today, and I have to say that this is certainly one of the better Bond films I've seen in some time.

Gritty, action-packed and Daniel Craig brings a new depth to a character that seemed too comic-book in previous installments. He played it tough, looked tough, and yet had a some moments of gentleness with Eva Green that rang true. And his acting style was natural enough to give us a Bond that we not only root for, but want to be like, which is very crucial to keeping the appeal of the character and this icon going. I felt a swagger to my step after the movie that made me recall the feeling of seeing Sean Connery in the Bond films and wanting to be like him in attitude and style. Ditto here.

Eva Green is luminous, sexy and intelligent as Vesper. Whenever she appeared on screen, there was an elegance and captivating style to her that made me forget the other bland Bond girls that were just there for show. Denise Richards will still be throwing laptops at old people 20yrs from now, but Eva Green has in this particular role given me an appreciation for her talent enough to warrant keeping an eye on her career in whatever future roles she may take on. Not something one often says about a Bond girl! Judi Dench just plain kicks ass...with just a few words, she steals the screen, and there seemed to be more of a solidity to her character in this film that was missing in the Brosnan Bond films. She too seems reinvigorated by the change of direction the filmmakers have taken with this series.

One more thing: mention has been made of the film feeling a bit overlong...well, it didn't feel like that to me! I wanted more, if anything! Well done by all concerned. Kudos.
10/10
Best Film I've Seen This Year!
Faye-918 November 2006
I've always LOVED the Bond films no matter who played 007, but have never needed to sit them more than once. But, I have never missed one in the theater on opening weekend. Being in the senior crowd now I am also very picky when I choose a film.

Casino Royale is absolutely awesome. From the opening music sung by the musical genius Chris Cornell - that song he wrote blows your socks off!!!! to the incredible job that Daniel Craig does, well, it's very very impressive. He's my new favorite Bond. I will probably go see it again in the theaters...then add it to my film library! Oh I'm so impressed!!!!

Can't say much more then that other than go see it and form your own opinions! Oh, and to you other Cornell fans. The song is done twice in the film. Opening titles AND the very end after the main 007 theme.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's just not Bond
shiddo22 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I liked this film overall, it's entertaining, there are some great sequences throughout, the women are beautiful, and the locations are breathtaking. But it's just not Bond. I don't care what anyone says, Bond needs gadgets. It's an underpinning of the entire genre of Bond. Moreover, the banter between Bond and Q is always a highlight of the film; if M can be replaced (by the horrific Judy Dench) then why can we not have a new Q? Also, Bond doesn't fall in love. It's just not how he operates. I don't care how young and naïve he is supposed to be in Casino Royale, women to Bond are simple disposable pleasures that are purely there for mere mortals in audience to aspire to.

I can acknowledge that the last two Bond films were pretty poor and made James Bond genre a parody of himself, but the way to fix this is not to run in the opposite direction and distance the movie from everything that Bond stands for.

As a final word, if this weren't a Bond film, how many people would have even bothered to watch this spy movie? Would it really have made it in to the IMDb top 250 list? I don't think so.
10/10
Has the feel of a Connery Bond film
lvscott24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A lot of people do not seem to understand a few things about this movie; For one, we do not really hear the classic Bond tune into the end of the film, and there is a point to that. This film shows us the process of how he became the James Bond in character, as we saw Bond back from the movies in the 1960's. It is not until the very end of this picture, when Bond has "learned his lesson" not to trust anyone, as he becomes the man with the "license to kill" Daniel Craig is excellent as Bond, on par with Connery and Dalton as the 2 men who really played Bond the best. I really cannot comment on whether he looks the role or not, I will leave that to the women to decide. For me he works as Bond, He is not wimpy looking like Bronson was in my opinion.

Gone is the over wise cracking lines that Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson's Bond seemed to all too much engage in as this film really brings us back to the feel of the older Connery Bond films.

In is the reality of the cold world of a secret agents life and mission requirements.

I really liked this film and Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond and consider it one of the best Bond films ever made.
9/10
Fleming's Bond is back (finally)
wilderfan7 December 2006
There is a credit in "Casino Royale" that has never appeared before- "based on the novel by Ian Fleming". For all of us who gritted our teeth through the Pierce Brosnan years, we fret no more- this is the best Bond film since "The Living Daylights" in 1987 (coincidentally the last 007 film to use Fleming's material in any meaningful way) and is a serious rival to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" as the best installment EVER.

The Bond movies go in cycles; after an excessively ridiculous entry, the producers will bring the series back to basics. Many amends had to be made for 2002's "Die Another Day" and I was thrilled to hear that an origin story based on Fleming's first (and best) book was to be filmed. What's so surprising is how close this film is to the novel.

The first hour or so is a spectacular adventure film with action sequences that stun and amaze. Martin Campbell's terrific staging and Stuart Baird's nimble editing gives the film a drive and energy that most movies lack.

But the movie really kicks into high gear when Fleming's original plot takes over. Aside from modernizing touches and a more spectacular finale, the book is faithfully adapted- Le Chiffre's inhalation of Benzadrine, the high stakes gambling, the infamous torture scene, Bond's fear and loathing of women are all present and correct. And what a thrilling tale it is! The spectre of terrorism makes a perfect substitute for Cold War fears.

Daniel Craig makes a fantastic Bond- he fits the description of a hard, cruel man who can be tipped over into sentiment. Eva Green is one of the most gorgeous women alive and gives a wonderfully three dimensional portrayal of Vesper Lynd. The shower scene is unforgettable.

Those who prefer their Bonds to be cartoonish may be disappointed- certainly the teenage boys who sat near me voiced their displeasure in no uncertain terms. I was in seventh heaven- Fleming's Bond is back!
10/10
10/10 for 007
loznjon24 November 2006
What a fantastic bond movie. Daniel Craig was perfect for this film portraying a 'young' James Bond on his first mission since receiving his 00 status. Craig's Bond is rough, brutal and determined while still retaining the cool suave and dark humour that is the essence of Bond.

Instead of being 'balls to the wall' with over the top special effects this is a brilliantly paced action film with deep characters, an involving plot, amazing locations and intelligent dialouge. The story gives us an wonderful insight into how Bond came to be the agent we all know.

Bond fans will love this film as will any fan of first rate action movies.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Another classic by Martin
loopmyworld27 September 2010
Bang......... You know my name! yes we know its james bond in his first adventure as 00. As a die hard bond fan i was totally disappointed by pierce adventures, actually he was not a bond, he would have been thrown out of bond role if he would'nt have done Goldeneye , which was Timothy Dalton's adventure. Goldeneye was the last bond movie to portrait the bond, other were just complete rubbish. lets get back to 2006. Other classic from Martin Campbell the director of Goldeneye , this time Casino Royale. keeping in mind to portrait a true bond i would say Daniel played his role brilliantly. The dark side of bond, more aggressive was perfect for this movie. In some scenes he gave the look of the true bond {Timothy Dalton}.

Although i miss the famous gunbarrel of the movie like other bond movies, but the start of the title track simply brought a huge smile on my face. 10 on 10 for the title track, action scenes were great in the movie, the two bond girls looked stunning. the role of LE chiffre was played brilliantly. The thing i hate about this movie is the background music... it sounds just rubbish these days.. where is the classic tunes of John barry which is let the mark on 007 movies, Micheal kamen for Licence to kill. well in short Casino Royale returns the true bond after LIcence to kill. 10 on 10 & yes we know your name!
10/10
Bond becomes who is always was
mrowland16 November 2006
I think it is good for a movie franchise that is struggling to re-invent itself: see Batman Begins. Pierce Brosnan's Bonds were decent; they started out with two good films and then ended with Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist and an invisible car on ice. Wonderful.

Bond is back to what he was intended to be: a blunt weapon. No gimmicks, no gadgets. Just a quick wit, a handgun, a beautiful woman, and some down-to-earth brutality.

This film shows us who Bond actually is, and why he is what he is in all the other Bond films. Sound confusing? Bond is not polished. It takes effort to eliminate his targets. He doesn't do so and then wipe the sweat off his brow; instead, he bleeds as he tries his best to simply silence them. There isn't just one punch and fall down the stairs and be on your merry way. No, this time, Bond struggles because he simply is too rough around the edges. He's careless, but passionate. Reckless, but in charge.

By the end of the film, you finally see why Bond is who he is in all the other films. You understand why he has his "armor." You understand how he became so efficient. You know why he won't "settle down." You begin to see the demons that can haunt him over the years.

And in the midst of all of it, you finally believe that this man is more than just a man. He's IS James Bond.
8/10
Daniel Craig goes "all in" as 007 in Casino Royale
thefilmlawyers28 October 2015
Casino Royale was the 21st film in the ever-popular James Bond anthology starring a brand new Bond in Daniel Craig, Eva Green as Bond-Girl Vesper Lynd, Dame Judi Dench as M and the ever dead-eyed Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. Casino Royale can only be described as a high-stakes gambling thriller where Bond is forced to play a ludicrously big poker game in order to defeat a master weapons dealer.

Casino Royale was Daniel Craig's first go at being 007 and the movie goes with that theme, this essentially being an origin story as to how Bond becomes a 00 agent. It starts off with a beautifully constructed black and white scene which goes to show the style that this new Bond undertakes during his missions. But right after the gorgeous opening theme, the film cuts to an action scene with Bond tearing Africa apart and shows his naivety as a special agent and how much he still has to learn to become the agent that he is in that opening shot. And on cue, Bond gets called out by M about it. This beginning to a "new" Bond really sets the tone for the movie as Bond now has to deal with overcoming his childishness and put away his ego if he wants to prove himself as a 00 agent.

Intertwined with this theme of becoming a mature 00, Bond has to now delve deeper into the mission that involves essentially defeating the supposed villain Le Chiffre in a very high stakes Poker game. There's never any time for Bond to be just sitting idly, and in the midst of the entire poker game (which has to have lasted about 45 minutes) a bunch o' danger things happen to Bond, which when they happen, you're just saying to yourself: "Yea, that's something that would only happen to Bond."

I think it has to be said right away that I absolutely loved this film, not just because as we progress through his series, I feel Daniel Craig is the best Bond in terms of being able to emotionally relate to him when he goes through his trials and tribulations. Minus Quantum of Solace of course. But this movie also gives us its utmost best attempt at portraying Bond and the rest of MI6 to be more like what would be found in the modern day.

However, this film is not perfect, not by a long shot. First off, it is way too long, clocking in at 144 minutes. The last 20-25 minutes could easily have been lopped off as it becomes more akin to a romance gone bad than a typical Bond movie. Second, the way it deals with the villain is atrocious. One of the things that made a Bond film a classic was the villain. You look at past movies like the early Sean Connery films and you remember that you had great villains in Dr. No and Blofeld. Le Chiffre belongs to that club as being a very memorable villain, playing this weapons dealer who's got his own issues to a tee. What ruins it, is how the plot develops to get rid of him. Of course, he's gonna be killed, this is a Bond film, the villain would never survive and make Bond look bad. But the way Le Chiffre is killed is partly a connection to the last 20 minutes when the actual villain of the story is revealed. But that is still the 20 minutes that I would have chopped off in the cutting room. But the movie's purpose in the portrayal is that there is always a higher up who is in more control of the supposed main characters.

The other memorable part of Bond films tends to be the Bond Girl. In years past, Bond girls have been iconic characters like Pussy Galore covered in gold in Goldfinger, or just like her, the girls have had manic names. But in previous movies, they've been there, for the most part, for the pleasure of Bond. In this, Eva Green nails the performance by bringing out the emotional side of Bond. Their interaction is key and the building of their relationship is crucial as to how the plot progresses to defeat Le Chiffre. They start with this witty banter which moves to a more loving relationship after an "unfortunate stairs scene" involving Bond, Vesper and a couple of mad African killers. However, even after the twist that director Martin Campbell throws the viewers way, Bond is now in an emotional state that shows that the "game" is not all about him anymore and that there are people around who immensely care about him anymore. And this is the biggest redeeming factor of the movie as you get a complete rounding of Bond from being egotistical to by the end being the Bond that we're all used to seeing. And that is none too apparent than Bond not using his trademark line of "The name's Bond, James Bond" till the absolute end of the movie.

Casino Royale does a great job of "rebooting" a franchise which had gotten over-reliant on using gimmicks and odd story-lines for their movies, in a way that made James Bond look like he was invincible. Casino Royale doesn't do that. You can actually feel every blow that Bond takes in the movie, and makes him almost like a normal, mortal human being and what it would be if they took that much punishment. There are reservations that I had about the film, a lot of them regarding the final 20 minutes, but I am willing to overlook that just cause the rest of the movie was shot marvelously.

Casino Royale earns its 00 status and gets a B+

http://thefilmlawyers.wordpress.com for more reviews
10/10
Excellent, back to basics Bond
adrianh-420 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the very start we see an accomplished performance from Daniel Craig. He keeps it taut with humour kept to a minimum (a trait from the books). The action is explosive (the crane work terrifying), the love scenes convincing and the gadgets believable (remember the space rangers from Moonraker? - urgh). The ending sets everything up nicely for the next film and the body count is high enough to guarantee that Daniel Craig's "blond Bond" is not just going to be a one off. Only one tiny criticism, as Judy Dench is very much a sign of the late 90's/early 00's, perhaps a male 'M' would have been better. After all, just about every other character has a different actor, why not this one?
10/10
Inch Perfect.!
vk_manuclub3 December 2008
I watched this movie, not being a BOND fan in fact. CASINO ROYALE has simply redefined JAMES BOND into a more human like character who can take the beating and can convince the audience that he can take care of his compatriots, not only by his gadgets but can beat 'em up as well in those sensationally shot fight sequences....and Daniel Craig pulls it off to perfection... with his marvel toned body and ever so stylish looks..

Another thing which gives this flick an edge over the others is its emotion quotient which makes Bond more of a emotional romantic Hero....all credit to Eva Green in that respect as she looked no less than absolutely mesmerizing....the entire cast was terrific...But again i can't stop praising this entirely new "battered and bruised BOND"....
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A great movie but a weak Bond ( SPOILER )
mister_mort27 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the sci-fi excess of DAD, eon decided to return to the style of the first Bond movies.

Being a fan of the 60's Bond, I was very excited. This time, the producers have taken their promise : It is really a new Bond, without any gadget ( but FRWL and OHMSS haven't, and they are two of the best bond movies of all time ) and more down to earth.

Action sequences are impressive, but not over the top like in the Brosnan movies.

Paul Haggis script is the best of all. It is faithful to the book and the dialogs work.

The new bond style is more realistic and violent, and it works very well. So is Casino royale an excellent spy movie ? Without any doubt But is Casino Royale a great bond movie ? It's not so clear.

The movie has one big problem : is name is Craig, Daniel Craig.

It's not that Craig is a bad actor, it's far from it ( he may be one of the finest actor to receive the role ), but the saddest thing is that he is absolutely the worst bond to ever face the silver screen.

Where Sean Connery ( the best bond ever ) did an amazing job by making bond a dangerous, brutal and highly charismatic bond with class, Craig's physical appearance and lack of class make him look more of a Jack Bauer in a tuxedo than Fleming's bond.

I only saw bond in three sequences : the pre title one, the one where he seduced and abandoned Solange and the last in the train where he met the treacherous Vesper Lynd.

What's a pity, with a young Connery, Casino Royale would have easily been the best bond ever. With Craig, it's just a ( pretty ) good movie.
10/10
"The Job is Done..." Casino Royale Review. WARNING SPOILERS
dantheman32815 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
"...The Bitch is Dead."

I'll not go in depth with the film, I'm only saying that because I'm not good at writing reviews but this is my opinion.

WARNING SPOILERS

On November the 14th, 2006 one Daniel proved his critics wrong and was triumphant. I'm referring to yesterday's World Premiere of Casino Royale and the Daniel is one that goes by the name of Daniel Craig.

On November 15th, 2006 another Daniel on a small island in the Caribbean saw what is perhaps the Best James Bond film in the franchise's history. The Daniel I'm referring to is me(Yes, I share the same first name of our new James Bond).

Casino Royale marks the arrival not just the return of Ian Fleming's cold-blooded secret agent.

The film moves at a steady pace never losing interest. Beautifully shot and directed by Martin Campbell. Voilent and gritty but yet still Bondian.

Fleming gets story credit: "Based on the Novel by Ian Fleming"

I'll just post comments on the actors, the poker game and action set pieces.

Daniel Craig: The moment Daniel's Bond arrives on screen it felt as if he was Bond for a long time...familiar yet a fresh breath of new life was breathe into a character I thought I knew. Craig shrines as James Bond, In the action, fights, and those tender moments with Vesper(those parts are the ones I love the most). Charming, and sophisticated. Daniel Craig IS James Bond OO7.

Eva Green: Beautiful and captures the enigmatic Vesper Lynd. Eva scenes with Daniel sings with a lot praises. The banter between the two is funny and witty. But the tender moments are where she is best and it works effectively with Daniel's Bond.

Mads Mikkelsen: Le Chiffre is a bastard and a desperate man. Mads' best scenes are at the poker game and specifically the torture scene(though I'll say Daniel steals this scene away from Mads.)

Jeffrey Wright: Need more Felix. Jeffrey Wright as Felix Lieter from the short amount of time the man is on screen I found him likable and a good Felix. A few more films for Wright then I'll put him up there with Jack Lord and Rik Van Nutter as my favorite Lieter.

Action set Pieces Rating on a Scale 1 to 5.

Parkour Chase/Crane Fight: Was a little too early in the film but I enjoy it for the most part. 7.5/10

MIA: My favorite action set piece. Intense! Will not elaborate any further. A must see! Ending of this piece...I found quite funny. 9/10

Venice Finale: It's the emotion impact that this one gets a high ranking. 8/10

Poker game is suspenseful. Wonderfully shot by Martin Campbell. Thumbs Up!

The Torture scene: I believe we got the US cut of the film and I must say. Ouch. I really felt for Bond. Daniel steals this one from Mads in my book.

I didn't found the love between Bond and Vesper rush(as some might have felt, it was rush in OHMSS), I thought was believable. Truly Heartbreaking.

Overall the BEST Bond film in my opinion.

A comment from one of my cousin came and watched the film with me: "That guy is the best Bond. a hardcore Bond."

His younger brother and himself came out quoting the "The Job is Done, The Bitch is Dead" line.

A lot of Brits on the island came out to see Daniel Craig as the new Bond. Let me just say they and myself were not disappointed.

Bravo, Daniel Craig, bravo.

"The Job is Done. The haters(Anti-Craig) are dead."

10/10
9/10
Daniel Craig Can Cut It As Bond
crookson19 November 2006
There was a lot of uncertainty and speculation when the actor to take the coveted James Bond role was revealed. Admittedly, I was one of the doubters but, after witnessing Daniel Craig's immaculate performance in the new movie Casino Royale, I was proved wrong.

The first blonde Bond gave the sophisticated, witty and arrogant performance expected of Britain's most famous secret agent. Dare I say it, the role was played as well, if not better, than his predecessor Pierce Brosnan, and the film was ten times better than the previous instalment, Die Another Day.

The script was cleverly structured, the twists in the storyline were far less predictable, the brilliant ending tied up the film very neatly, and Craig injected some very humorous lines into the dialogue. When asked how he would prefer his Martini prepared, instead of the traditional "Shaken, not stirred", this time Bond replied "Do I look like I give a damn?" Unlike many of the previous movies, the emphasis of Casino Royale was less on the cars and car chases, Bond girls and gadgets, but more on the story and characters. And yes, as rumours suggested, James Bond did drive a Ford Mondeo. Classy.

Of course, the Mondeo was later traded in for a flashy Aston Martin DB9, fully equipped with all the classic Bond gadgets and gizmos. The only disappointment came when, just as Craig set off in his new toy on a long-awaited car chase, he proceeded to skid off the road and write it off in a spectacular fashion. The only equipment from the fully stocked Aston that Bond put to good use was a medikit to keep him alive after being drugged by his arch nemesis in a poker game.

However, the positives in Casino Royale far outweighed the negatives. All the characters were acted brilliantly, in particular Bond girl Vesper Lynd, played by actress Eva Green. Vesper wasn't a typical Bond girl – she actually developed a meaningful relationship with the secret agent, as oppose to the traditional one night stand. The role was played with the quick wit and sophistication unseen from previous lead female characters.

As always, not a fault could be picked with the performance of Bond film veteran Judi Dench as Craig's boss, M.

I have never been a big fan of Bond, but I haven't seen such a cleverly scripted, action-packed film in a long time. I was extremely impressed with the new movie, and expect Daniel Craig to play the character many more times in years to come. He certainly proved the critics wrong.

9/10
7/10
i'll take back my words...
nix_wesclark0430 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
oh,god, when knowing that Daniel Craig will play Bond this time, i thought it'll be you know...a major crap on screen. But i just saw Bond a few days back, and i cant tell you how astonished i was! It's great! Why? here's why :

The score is lovely! (the style kind of reminds me of John Barry's Somewhere in time. lovely piece there!) A huge applause for the composer!*don't know his name yet for now.lol*

Now, the action scene is getting better! Compared to the last Bond movie, Die Another Day,it's so much more thrilling *no it's not because of Mr.Craig's face!*. The cinematography was also brilliant during the fighting/action sequences and also the one where Vesper was crying in the shower and Bond stayed with her and instead of taking her out of the shower because it's cold, he increased the shower's heat level and stayed there...was lovely! It's very original i tell you!Plus the surroundings are great! they're very captivating! Love the action, you will! Though, this time around it's much more focused on love and romance..AND almost 45 minutes of poker game..so if only there's more action, i'll surely lay out a 10 for this film!

The villain, Le Chirffe, played by Mads Mikkelsen, is bloody hot. AND, it's funny for me because last time, i fell in love with the villain too! Remember Toby Stephens in Die Another Day? yeah, this two dudes pretty much have that kind of distinctive and sexy villain face. which is fine by me!

As for Daniel Craig, i still don't agree that he's sexy. But he's a fine actor and he did well as Bond. I especially love this new sarcastic, cool, and funny Bond that he brought in his character. Good script! And major plus for that awesomely hot clothings! The Bond girl, who also played Sabilla in Kingdom of Heaven, is not the 'tough' looking bond girl..well, she's actually more like an accountant. But she did OK.

So, if you thought "haha, how good can this be? with that guy as Bond?", you're wrong. It's one of the good and must-see movie this year. The score is good, the action is awesome though they should have done more*, the cinematography was great, and the humour...is just FANTASTIC!

Say hello to the new kind of Bond!
2/10
Boring, slow, no point
griffin7328 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I didn't enjoy this movie. The only thing that made it watchable was Eva Green. Craig was drab, slow-witted and totally lacking in style. He is a dumb-persons James Bond.

The action felt forced and staged and the antagonist was without personality. I was hoping for more substance and less bang and knock-around but it was truly a blunt movie.

Judy Dench didn't even put in a good performance. I felt the cast of the supporting characters was fine but then again, very little interaction with other characters outside of the ones he kills with his bare hands. No gadgets, no suave persona, no real Bond-isms. It just wasn't a real bond film. In twenty years people will look back and ignore this one outing from the rest of the classics, just as they have done with Her Majestys Secret Service.

All in all...a bad movie.
10/10
Permission for all Craig Nay-sayers to choke on their cornflakes
thompson01326 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
WARNING CONTAINS VERY MINOR SPOILERS (if you've seen the trailer your OK ;-) )

just seen Casino Royale.... no wrong place to start.

i am a bond fan, love the movies always have done. I don't think there has been a bad bond among the 6 of them, each actor brings something new to the role. i was gutted when the series died after Dalton. I LOVED Goldeneye. not only did it resurrect the franchise but it i classed it as one of the best bond movies out there. it had the formula perfect. but lets face it take the bond tinted glasses off the follow ups were poor at best, nothing compared with Goldeneye and certainly nowhere near the classics such as Dr No and Goldfinger. The minute Mike Myers released Austin Powers they should have realized they needed to take it in another direction to stop its death ala Dalton. 'real' spy movies like The Bourne Identity were released, again bond soldered on with the raised eyebrow tongue in cheek style, nailing the coffin lid hard down.

So onto Casino Royale and Daniel Craig. it blew me away. I hope all the effigy burning critics who where baying for Craigs blood before a single scene was shot are standing heads bowed. Bond isn't invulnerable, he doesn't have an invisible car to chase down the baddies, nor an ejection seat to shoot him to safety when he horrifically crashes his Aston Martin. he doesn't care how his drink is fixed or CGI Surf up to the target. he is a cold blooded killer. one tracked to get the job done, with anything he has close to hand. killing with gun and bare hands a real 00. he gets physically and emotionally hurt and for the first time since Dr No the its about the Story not just the man.

If you want to point out the bad points then you could say the poker scenes although realistically staged are so far fetched that the aura around the movie gets broken (sorry I'm a poker lover and you could have had just as much tension if they were playing realistic hands and bluffing with nothing instead of 'only' low full house's and flushes lol) but it is Hollywood and i guess thats what virgins to the game expect to see.

OK for the people who refuse to see it because the he has the wrong colour hair and the people who have seen it and are too stubborn to see past the wrong colour hair.

THEY-MADE-THE-RIGHT-CHOICE in Daniel Craig end of story.

oh my god he had blonde hair! oh my god he is'nt 7 foot tall and made of solid gold and doesn't breathe fire with every breath. The man can act with more then his eyebrows and he has made himself the best bond since Connery in a sum total of 144 minutes up to THAT iconic final line... in fact why am i here and not back at the cinema watching it again. Maybe Ian Flemming can stop turning in his grave now that his creation has returned to his pure cold blooded roots.
6/10
Film reasonable; Bond great
sarum1003 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First and foremost, Daniel Craig is great in this film: not surprising for anyone who saw his performances in Our Friends In The North (on UK TV) or Elizabeth...He had more dramatic depth and emotional resonances than many a recent Bond. He's a real actor, with real presence and real ability and, hopefully, this will be the wider audience breakthrough that will allow us to see him in many different guises.

The film was fine - a typical Bond film: daft plot; fantastic action scenes...

It doesn't, however, live up to the classic Bond films (ie Connery era) in terms of villains or humour. Sean Connery is a good actor. I don't actually think he has the depth of Craig as a dramatic actor, but he caught the suave brutality of Bond perfectly - Bond as both brute and gentleman. Craig comes off as a brute pretending to be a gentleman: with Connery, he was both. Connery and the films of that period, also had the humour nailed to perfection - the modern Bond may carry more angst and conflict within himself, but the film lacks that lightness of touch to offset the violence, that classic Bond films have.

Which brings me to the iconic capture and torture scene. Every Bond film has one. In Connery's case, his most precious equipment might be threatened by a laser, but we know he'll be saved before any potential damage might occur. The modern Bond has to be submitted to a far more tangible S&M experience - such that one seriously wonders how he manages to walk straight in the final reels of the film, let alone jump on his now girlfriend with such abandon. And yet, and yet, the former Connery scene, in all its obvious teasing of the audience, is so much more effective than the knotted rope scene, which just becomes painful to watch. (Edit: from reading around, the scene is pretty much as is portrayed in Fleming's book, so I guess the film makers were just being true to the original Bond vision).

The difference between the two scenes, pretty much sums up the difference between the two Bonds. It is highly possible that the blunter, more inescapably violent, Bond is a better fit for our blunter, inescapably violent modern times - but there's just something about that cruel, brutal, yet playful and joyously inventive earlier film Bond, that entertains more...and that is all that Bond films aspire to do, amidst all of their action, villains, beautiful doomed ladies and gadgets.
3/10
One of the worst Bond films ever
LXi20 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was one of my least favorite Bond films(next to The Man With the Golden Gun and Moonraker). Craig's overall portrayal of the character was way too stone cold, far darker than even Dalton's Bond. I only saw him drop his frozen look once, the entire length of the film. The only part that I enjoyed was when he was in the Bahamas. I also disliked that the main plot of the film was that it was his first mission, making it seem like all the previous films never happened.

I also felt that the film dragged on too much. And what's up with both of the Bond girls dying? Was there something wrong with him and Vesper making love at the end of the film and the famous "Oh, James"? And where were "Q" and Moneypenny? I felt it broke all tradition and is one of the worst Bond films ever.
9/10
Best Bond Film for Years
kevingoodwin14 December 2006
Finally, a Bond who is believable, athletic and actually appears capable of carrying out some of his characters actions. Who could believe that Roger Moore or Brosnan could fight their way out of trouble ? but this guy !!!! Excellent casting, may be worth remaking some of the earlier Bond films , especially Man with the Golden Gun, On Her Majestys Secret Service and any of the ones with Moore as Bond. Dark , cruel and a much more adult James Bond.

The gizmo's mostly gone, childish double entendres, busty, mindless females, all rightly thrown away. This is the way the novels were written and at last they have got it right. I've got to say, move over Connery, you've just been out acted and replaced as THE James Bond. One slight negative, The Vesper Lind character was miscast or someone should beat her hairdresser with a length of rope whilst they sit on an open seated chair .......... Superb film
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Great Flick... a must see! Ignore naysayers!!
jeffcaplinger16 November 2006
Saw it in Baltimore at the premiere! Taken on it's own merit, it was fantastic. If you compare it to the last 44 years of Bond, it does set a new course. I don't think you can compare it to the old movies until Craig makes a couple more of them. Sure beats DAD (had possibilities, but ended up being a piece of crap). Accept Craig, he definitely kicks ass like Bond of the books. Not a pretty boy like Rog or Pierce. Gotta like that. Blond Bond? His hair is fairly dark most of the time. remember that Rog had pretty light hair in the last 4 of his flicks. Go see it, it really rocks! Liked the black and white opening. Not sure about the title sequence. I may have to see this flick again so that I can understand the complex plot. It was great, but I know I missed a lot as I was absorbing the whole premiere thing.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Craig's debut as Bond has a few aces up it's sleeve.
RockySchlockyRobot11 December 2006
Absolutely fantastic.

Those first 20 minutes were just breathtakingly entertaining and, of course, the film couldn't keep that pace up for the next 2 hours. However, for the most part, it almost made it. Some great humour, some nice nods to the future character that Bond became, some brilliant stunts and vicious fight sequences.

My only two complaints were that Bond seemed far too easily fooled on a couple of occasions (but, of course, that was the point . . . he had to learn) and that the ending seemed to appear and then fade and then appear again. By the last 15 minutes I was thinking of Return Of The King and wondering if Campbell had wagered with Jackson that he could cram more endings in. Not quite the best Bond film ever made but straight into the top tier.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
an excellent Bond movie
livvytheolive5 December 2006
Its a an amazing movie because they all do there own stunts witch are brilliant. Before Casino Royale was made there were bad comments that the new Bond would not make a good Bond but since the movie came out it seems people like him. The film has violence and kissing and stuff,but the moves were amazing.There was a great storyline script and settings.At first before i saw the movie i thought i was going to find it boring but in the end i felt like WOW that was brilliant!.People who really love action,Bond and mission movies will really enjoy this film. I recommend it to all the family and your friends you will really enjoy it I did! Because i used to not really like Bond but now I've changed my mind.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best One in a While (Spoilers maybe)
thehighwaypatrol19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Right now it is somewhat hard for me to write this comment without giving any spoilers but I have marked it with a a spoiler tag just in case somebody thinks this has a spoiler in it.

I saw this last night with a bunch of my friends. After watching the movie we came to the conclusion that it has been a while where a Bond movie hasn't been totally about some hot chick with a bizarre name or gadgets that somehow work their way into the plot. The execution of all the stunts was great, any gadgetry was minimal and quite believable and most of all, Daniel Craig is quite ripped. To all the nay sayers about Craig, yes in the trailers he looks somewhat weak and a little short, but whenever there is a scene with him without a shirt he is very built not only shown by a very defined six pack but also by great muscle definition in his arms and legs. The other thing that Craig brought to the movie was his sense of style. He was able to play an egotistical head case and a gentleman without a change in how he acted.
9/10
Bond goes gritty and realistic, and works wonders
isaacbbabcock28 March 2007
My girlfriend is a Bond freak. She owns every DVD, and almost every VHS. She has three copies of some of them. Thusly, I've seen all of them, from the first to the last.

Having been given the benefit of understanding the progression of the films to the most recent, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Casino Royale.

Gone were the goofy gimmicks of invisible cars and x ray sunglasses, and gone were the unrealistic, corny plots.

This Bond got real in a big way, and revitalized the franchise.

As everyone knows, the films rest heavily on the performance of the title role, and Daniel Craig was definitely a risk. He's blond, he's got blue eyes, and he definitely hasn't played this role before.

He also hit the ball out of the park with his performance. Gritty, raw, but with an emotional depth that was lacking in Timothy Dalton's far-too-serious Bond, Craig split the emotional double role right down the middle, making his character more human in the process.

That doesn't mean he can't be tough. His fight scenes and chases had a brutal reality that was totally absent from perhaps the last six Bond films, which had relied on increasingly stylized fighting to wow the audience with visual flair that defied reality.

Craig and the film crew brought the brutal realism back with a vengeance. You felt the informant's head crashing through the porcelain of the sink. You raced into the room with Bond as he chased the bad guy.

He brought you into the scene with him.

My complaints lie in the latter parts of the film. I consider this film to be essentially two in one. I can't tell you what that is, or I'd spoil it, but considering this monster's record length, you can figure there's a lot of plot in there. It could have been split in two, had 20 minutes added to each end, and been two very successful films.

When it does transition over is the problem. All too quickly does it race into the romantic aspects, only to be tossed into act two with breakneck speed. I didn't expect this, and was wondering why the movie kept going.

Not that every moment wasn't really necessary. There's no filler material here, but it's so high energy the whole way through that it's exhaustive just to watch. But it's worth it. See it and understand. Bond is back, and Craig has made the role his own.
7/10
BOND IS BACK! again...................................
grrrr9730 November 2006
Well I've just gazed my eyes upon this film and I have to say I enjoyed it even though from my point of view it didn't feel like a bond film at all and heres why.....

I'm not a bond fan; I think 70 per cent of Bond films should be taken out and blown up by M.I.6 agents, but maybe that's the picky film buff inside me shinning through.

My favourite Bond is Goldeneye, not because it was the first Bond I saw at the cinema, but mainly because of the style of the film. It had cold war bite to it, which was I feel incredibly refreshing when one compares it to the vast majority of the Bond films, which almost seem Lord of the Rings like in there blatant disregard for reality or common sense.

I was open minded when I first heard that Daniel Craig was to be the next British actor to be Bond, he has an air of tangible mystery about him, which even makes a red blooded heterosexual like myself wetter than a Saleen Dion single. I loved his performance and that of Eva Green who is I think one of the most beautiful women alive right now. Vulnerable and yet strong as is Bond which of course is why they fall in love.

Next the bad guy's, now I can't remember his name and to honest I'm not that bothered, but the guy with one eye was brilliant, understated malevolence. So much better than he over the top anal-retentive villains we usually have to deal with in these films.

The story as I have to say rather weak until Eva Green turned up, it was almost as if Martin Campbell wanted us to see want Bond can do to inanimate bad guys. But it's not as if the last 21 films have given us any clue that he's a bit of a nutter. But as soon as Eva turned up the real fireworks start to fly. The script is superb in the exchanges between Green and Craig and I feel the line "I've got no armour left" summed up why the film was so good and why Daniel Craig is a damn good Bond.

007 is a man and like all men he falls in love, he makes mistakes and he hurts people mentally and physically. This Bond is human, he is believable, vulnerable and not invincible and I feel unless you have that in any action character Bond or nay the audience will switch off as they know before the 2 hours are up half the cast will be dead ready for some steam action before the titles roll.

This film didn't make me switch off it engaged me the whole way through and I have to say it's one of the best spy/action thrillers I've ever seen. I almost think it's too good, too intelligent to be a Bond film along with the other 30 per cent of the 22 007 movies.

But I say hats off the Martin Campbell who saved the Bond Brand in 1995 and I dare say as saved it again for another decade. But anyone who really knows about films must realise that how good a Bond film is doesn't depend on who is cast as the lead, but who is behind the camera directing the film and I can only wish that Craig's second outing as Bond will be made as well made as this one.

But I know and I think we all know that the only way is down for Daniel Craig's incarnation of 007.
9/10
The Best Bond In Years ...
yskwong16 November 2006
I'd personally think he's one of the best Bond, only behind the one and only original Sean Connery ... Afterall, who could beat the original who set the standard for Bond? I first had doubt when MGM decided to cast Daniel Craig as Bond, I didn't thought that he had the look of a Bond, but this movie lifted all my doubt against him ... I've been a great fan of the 007 franchise, and I hate to admit he's even better than Roger Moore, and definitely better than Pierce Brosnan ...

Casino Royale is definitely a must-see movie for all Bond fans, even non-fans will enjoy it ... everything just fits perfectly ... the actions, the storyline, the dialogue, etc ... everything ...

I'm very sure that Daniel Craig is here to stay as the Bond for the many years to come ... it'd be a loss if MGM doesn't renew his Bond contract ...

Overall, a 9/10 because the movie lasted a bit long, not that it's boring, in fact it's a great movie ... but I had to hold myself from going to the urinal for a pee-pee ... Arghh ...
6/10
James Bom\nd 00??
allypk200027 December 2009
yet another bond movie which everyone was waiting for but the true spirit of bond is missing here with this movie. Danny Craig on the other spot puts his body on the line for this movie which is really rewarding. Also the cast, the bond girls were also at their best but why all the negatives? why not the positives? James bond was suppose to have all the answers and yet in this movie bond was confusing in solving the mysteries. Apart from his first case in this movie, MI6 agents are i guess never confused or aggressive like shown in this movie but there is always a pick in every character and that pick is over acting or over reacting. it was kinda both. i rated 6/10 to this movie just because of the action sequences and park our scenes in the initial part of the movie. Danny Craig was awesome but the director and the screenplay written missed the scent of true James Bond movie.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Classy,Confident and Cool!!!
cheesymctaggert23 December 2009
This is a return to form for the James bond movies!!! The earlier James bond movies were my favourite with Sean Connery but this is a amazing film awesome car chases and massive flips. Daniel Craig is brilliant he is less smooth as the other bonds but he is far more gritty and hardcore..

The Scenery in the free running bit is epic that is the best 10 minutes of any film with 007 chasing someone over cranes and constructions sites the direction and stunts are awesome..

For me this film has no bad point other than it actually ended i didn't want it to end.

Truly Awesome!!!!!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This Movie shocked me, in a good way
anthony_toma16 November 2006
i went into this movie trying not to be excited and expecting too much so that i could avoid disappointment but instead they give an interesting movie with a great mix of action and story to keep it going, alright acting, maybe the odd cheesy line but who cares. The action was brilliant and the comedy factor worked well. well all i can say is that the entire cinema was clapping and cheering for the film when it ended and i would see it again. the only negatives i can see is that maybe it needed a little more emotion but maybe that was the point.i was lucky enough to see the late night premier on Tuesday and it was a great night, good atmosphere. get to a cinema as soon as possible !!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond for 40 years
mark-knight6 December 2006
A wonderful, hard hitting thriller that takes Bond back to the great years of the early 60s. If you liked the Connery movies you will love this although equally if you thought the Roger Moore movies were the height of the series (and God help you if you did) then you are in for a big disappointment. Gone are the inane names (Miss Goodthighs, Onatop etc), the ridiculous gadgets (a gondola turning into a hovercraft in Moonraker for goodness sake) and the double entendres which were stylish and risqué 40 years ago but which recently in a more graphic age have been just dreadful and embarrassing (there is humour but it is dry, ironic and perfectly matched to the scene).

Daniel Craig, like Connery before him, actually looks like he is up to it all physically. In short he is hard, nasty and dangerous (Moore was about as dangerous as a damp Sunday afternoon in Skegness). Gone are the days of wondering which button of which Q issued toy Bond will press to get out of trouble. This Bond has to rely on his wits and fight for his life.

Eva Green is excellent and there is a genuine frisson between her and Craig in their scenes together which along with a fine script makes the development of their relationship both believable and touching.

If I had to criticise anything then the theme music is anodyne and instantly forgettable (where is John Barry when you need him) but the opening credits are excellent, updating the traditional Bond style whilst still paying homage to the past.

The few people out there who have criticised the movie and Craig as Bond have all come from essentially the same position i.e. they want lots of stunts, ludicrous Batman style gadgets, buxom blondes and stuff any idea of plot, character development or genuine danger. Well let's leave them to their cartoons. Quite frankly the fact that they don't like the movie is as good a reason for going to see it as any of the praise I and others can heap on it.

At long last the Bond for the new millennium.
9/10
new grading code
rorochido111 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
casino royale just another bond film that has perverted the name of the ian fleming franchise, not so. this film has a new owner. the director took the reigns and steered it on a different modern approach. So the following is what i felt after watching this film. Note each category is based between 0 being bad, 10 being excellent.

Presentation: (How bad i wanted to see it, review scores)8 Got good reviews, not enough to go to the theatres, just rented it.

Pace: (mood, lenght/energy, make sense, where some scenes neccessary?)9 Good watchable pace, all make sense, no boring parts.

Visual: (color, angle, wide/close ups, bright/dark)8 Dark professional is the visual theme, focus on glamour, mostly closeup shots not bad since Daniel Craig (James Bond) has a magnetic piercing look.

Sound: (background music, clarity, match with theme? music score)6 Nostolgic 007 theme tune but not as apparent as previous film, will appreciate effects with surround sound.

Story: (beg, mid, end, depth, twists, surprises, originality)9 Gone is the saving the world from a madman theme, more realistic on taking down one wealthy international terrorist. Gone is the Sean Connery lucky playboy swagger. More about focusing on the mission without pleasant distractions.

Character: (development, acting, attraction/repeling)10 Daniel Craig (Bond) steals the show accompanied by a solid cast. Lead female character Vesper is somber almost glares at you, tries hard to "act" as if she is hiding a trouble past. The attraction between Bond and Vesper is not believable bond:martini barman:shaken or stirred? bond:does it look like i give a damn! don't you see the woman i have to work with? horrendous!

Improvements: Sexier lead female even my GF would do. Better musics score, with all the money invested in a movie at least...something! Previos title "Die Another Day" had hit modanna soundtrack...

Lasting Appeal: 9 Strong lead role, superb pace, charming British accent, modern realistic theme, surprise end.
10/10
Not Just a Great Bond Film... A Great Film. Period.
hellodavey19 January 2007
The Bond series is a perhaps the most unique series of films in cinema history. Most people who have a TV or are reading this have no doubt seen nearly every film in the series at least twice (thanks to ITV's Christmas time!) and a lot of people would say they probably enjoy watching the films. In the words of Keith Barrett, "It's a bit of fun." But thats just it. So far I'm pretty sure there is no one out there (not even the most die hard Bond fan) who would apply the term cinematic masterpiece or whatever to any of them. Indeed bar a couple of the "classic" early Connery Bond films such as Goldfinger all the ratings this website appears to have for the films hover around the 6 to low 7 mark. Certainly with the Roger Moore period came the fun comical bond series and with Lazenby and Dalton (well lets just say I probably lie with the masses on those ones!) With Goldeneye, came Pierce Brosnan - my favourite Bond Film and Bond Actor. Its the only Bond DVD I have chosen to buy. Unfortunately, as would probably be expected with such a long series, the formula was getting repetitive and it culminated with the crime against humanity that was "Die Another Day!"

Then came Casino Royale and suddenly my childish excitement of having seen a James Bond film came rushing back. The first thing to point out is that I see it as no coincidence that my now two favourite Bond films were both directed by Martin Campbell. If you could just for a second forget the ludicrous idea of playing a card game to save the world for one second (Ian Fleming's idea anyway) both these films felt in some kind of way real, not realistic, just real. Good description - I know. I mean there was no Chinese turned ginger villain, no Denise Richards as a Bond girl, no blatant beyond belief innuendo or general BS that has plagued many a Bond film. The trademark bond scenes in this film have been give a touch of genius. Daniel Craig - like many other reviewer or critic has said already - gives us a truly awesome and different Bond - indeed the closest to Fleming's Bond. The girls provided elegance and style (M included!) The storytelling is immersing and you will enjoy the constant moving action of the film. Like I say, Casino Royale is a great film by itself and to be honest I couldn't stop smiling for a long time afterwards because it made the rest of the series look like a farce. I really do think it deserves an overall rating of above 8.0 and perhaps even a place in the TOP 250!!!
6/10
The novel Bond's satirical parody
coolfasho-128 November 2006
The only James Bond story for which Albert Broccoli never obtained the rights is Casino Royale. Those are held by Charles Feldman, who, following the success of Dr. No, From Russia with Love, and Goldfinger, decided that he wanted to make his own Bond film. After commissioning a script, he began casting. When attempts to "borrow" Sean Connery from Broccoli came to naught, Feldman decided on a radical change in tone. Instead of making Casino Royale a "straight" movie, he chose to attempt a parody.

The opening is promising. We are introduced to the "real" Sir James Bond (David Niven), a retired "pure spy" who is horrified by the outrageous activities of the agent currently assigned his name and number. M (John Huston) appeals for Bond's return to active duty. Spies all over the world are being killed, and the governments of the Soviet Union, France, the United States, and England have temporarily set aside their differences to combat SMERSH, the criminal organization suspected of the murders. At first, Bond refuses, but, after M is killed, he changes his mind and agrees to come back.

For twenty minutes, Casino Royale is clever, witty, and exacting in its satire. The conventions so popular in the official Bond movies -- the gadgets, the women, and the cars -- are skewered with relish. Bond is a reserved twit with a stutter who looks and acts nothing like the dashing Connery version, and his contempt for the "tricks of the trade" is plain.

Unfortunately, after the introductory sequences, Casino Royale begins a downhill slide. It gets progressively sillier and more incoherent until it's impossible to keep any of the plot elements straight. Worse, with only occasional exceptions, the humor ceases to be funny, and the whole production degenerates into absurdity. By the ending, just about every agent has been renamed James Bond, including Peter Sellers, Charles Cooper, Daliah Lavi, and a chimpanzee. There are other Bonds as well: the daughter of Sir James and Mata Hari, Mata Bond (Joanna Pettet), and Sir James' nephew, Jimmy Bond (Woody Allen).

Five directors helmed this production, and it shows. Casino Royale is poorly-paced and the transitions are largely ineffectual. Each segment has a different main character, so the overall effect is like cobbling together five short episodes, then devising a ludicrous ending to resolve them all. It doesn't work, and the viewer is left scratching his or her head, wondering what's going on.

Three "legitimate" Bond actors crossed between the official series and Casino Royale. The most notable is Ursula Andress, the femme fatale of this film, who played Honey Ryder in Dr. No. Vladek Sheybal, who has a small role here, was SPECTRE agent Kronsteen in From Russia With Love. And Angela Scoular, Casino Royale's Buttercup, appeared in On Her Majesty's Secret Service as one of Blofeld's allergy girls.

By far the best element of Casino Royale is Burt Bacharach's score. Light and upbeat, it's the perfect musical companion for a spy spoof. Neither John Barry nor the "James Bond Theme" is missed (although a Barry tune can be briefly heard -- Bacharach uses the title track from Born Free during a scene with some lions).

Despite an impressive cast that includes such notables as Niven, Sellers, Allen, Orson Welles, Jean-Paul Belmondo, and Jacqueline Bisset, Casino Royale is too ridiculous and muddled to be of more than passing interest to real Bond enthusiasts. The few good aspects of this farce are vastly outweighed by the bad. Besides, given how close some of the Bond movies have come to self-parody, it's questionable whether an outright satire is warranted.
8/10
Good back-to-basics Bond film
jtsmillie11 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I haven't been to a Bond film in years- the election of Pierce Brosnan as Timothy Dalton's successor had me about convinced that the genre was spiritually and brain-dead. But when Daniel Craig came along and brought, from all reports, a harder, grittier, more back-to-basics Bond with him, I wondered if this wasn't worth seeing...

The answer, obviously, is yes. There are enough trappings of the classic Bond film franchise to make it familiar to the partisans of the films over the books - the obligatory unbelievable opening chase scene, for example - but this is Bond the way Ian Fleming would have wanted it. The subdued electricity of the casino scenes contrasted with the raw, elemental violence of the numerous killings that occur, coupled with the sexual tension between Bond and Vesper Lynd, have the feel of being lifted off Fleming's pages rather than being scripted.

There's updating of course- the game in this version is poker, not baccarat, and Le Chiffre finances Al Qaeda and the African militias - but these don't weaken the story; nor does the presentation of Bond as a newly-crowned Double-0 who's sometimes (read nearly always) too quick to resort to the gun.

The only real weakness I can assign to this film as a film is that it has too many endings. Bond being Bond, you know (spoiler alert) that the one where he and Vesper are retired and living happily ever after isn't going to last, but three separate final scenes after that? That's a bit much even for the hardened fan. At a certain point, I found myself wondering "When is this going to be over?" - not because it was a bad story, but just because they kept finding something else to tack onto the end.
10/10
Ahhh,... Repentance!
koziol23 November 2006
I love it! After succumbing to the whims of the masses of sheeople calling for ridiculously pompous Pierce Brosnan to replace refined actor Timothy Dalton who played Bond with more toughness and believability than any other actor. (Regardless of what McDonalds regulars, and people who check with their friends before thinking, may think). Bond can now resume being as tough on screen as he is in print! Not that the wit is gone by any stretch, it's as fast as the chase scenes, just try and keep up! Daniel Craig is perhaps a lesser actor than Timothy Dalton (not by much, at least as good as Sean was and better than all the rest), but he is even tougher. (You really believe that he could kick the villain's ass. Really!) Sure I have sentiments for Sean as the original Bond, but let's just get real here!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good but Not a Bond film
tomtheirishman918 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
-possible spoilers- I went in expecting a continuation from the last few Bonds just with a new James Bond. The film was great, acting above par for an action film, action sequences perfect but it lacked the James Bond edge and not to the fault of Daniel Craig either who stepped in perfectly. It was in the script rather that they messed with the three key elements that create a Bond film: Bond willing to give up his job, no action sequences covered by the Bond Theme, and it's left open to continuation unlike the others. So definitely worth the ticket and your time if you're a fan of the past films in the franchise don't expect the same Bondesque qualities
8/10
Excellent!
wardelltrades19 November 2021
This one is possibly holds the top spot out of all the Craig Bond films. Plays so much how a Bond film should. Second viewing many years later was just as solid as the first. Fast car, beautiful women, high stakes gambling. Beautifully shot. A+
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bonding with Bond
deepanjan-jocktalk19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If you want the same formula repeated over and over again your money would be better spent on a DVD of Die Another Day. Personally that movie almost made me puke. Having read the books, this is the closest a Bond movie has come to Fleming's writing. My biggest problem with earlier Bond movies is that it seemed to turn Fleming's stories into a schoolboy fantasy. I mean, let's be realistic here, the sets looked terribly "fake", and that is the keyword here. This Bond is "real", flesh and blood, he feels fear, he falls in love, he gets hurts (in more ways than one), he gets cut, he bleeds, and my God can he fight. The sophistication, the panache, the style is all there, but here these qualities are attached to a man who can also get poisoned, have heart failure, and worst of all, nearly lose his manhood. This is Bond the way Fleming wrote it. Like someone else said........Welcome back 007.......Welcome back!!!
8/10
Really good movie.
spbaker221 February 2010
When I heard Pierce Brosnon was leaving the role of Bond I was disappointed. Then along came Daniel Craig. Holy cow this guy gets the job done with an "I'm a bad ass" edge to him.

You will still have the consistency of some old familiar characters, which is nice, and you get to see how their relationships with the new Bond develop. Of course, there is a Bond girl (typical Bond movie) that has a very interesting character and makes the movie that much more enjoyable.

This film does a great job of continuing on with the Bond legacy. If you are a bond fan, you won't be disappointed. Lots of action and drama with exciting plot twists,definitely a movie worth anyone's while to see.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is Back!
joe-elliott25 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
OK. So there was a lot of controversy over Daniel Craig's appointment as James Bond, 'he's blonde!' etc. But seeing Casino Royale,I can't see what all the fuss was about. Craig is Bond. He fits the role perfectly, tough but with a more emotional side seen surprisingly often. The whole movie, from the crane leaping start to the Venice sinking end, Royale packs a punch. The fight scenes are intense, realistic and brilliantly acted. Shame about no gadgets, but still. Nice cars, nice women, Royale still contains Bond trademarks, there is even a 'Bond, James Bond' at the end. This movie will become a Bond classic! 10/10 this movie deserves nothing less.
10/10
James Bond at his best.
T-Sour23 February 2014
Words cannot describe this stunningly beautiful piece of cinema, so I will do my best to try. This is one of the most enthralling experiences Bond has have been on physically and emotionally. He pours his heart and soul into every person he meets. Daniel Craig shows a darker tone as Bond. He gives him and more human aspect that seems to be withering away with each minute that passes by as he hunts down Le Chiffre, the main villain. The Bond girls are gorgeous. Vesper Lynd is by far one of the best Bond girls and not just her looks, she can act as well. She plays off Bonds charm here and there and she just fully commits to this arrogant but secretive lady. M is amazing as always. I can go on and on all century about this movie, so here it is, this has to be one of the best Bonds ever.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good movie, bad Bond
oyvindhauge10 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My friends and I went to see the last Bond movie a week ago. We are not particular Bond fans and we did not wear our suits and we did not watch the movie sipping Martinis. When that is said we have seen most of the previous Bond movies and we all found our new Bond (Craig) to be under pair as a Bond. He did not have the same class and style as some of the previous ones. We missed some of the fun gadgets from the old movies. The bond girl(s) are as always good looking but perhaps not breath taking..?? The movie itself was way better than the last ones. It was a very good action movie with a more modern Bond. The movie is perhaps a bit more violent than previous Bond movies. I think it makes it more believable. However, it had some unlikely scenes (e.g. Bond catching black guy in the first part of the movie) but that is how Bond should be.

Over all a very good movie but Daniel Craig is not the perfect Bond as we know him from older movies.
10/10
One of the Best Bond Movies Ever
RafiSteinger10 March 2007
Over the years, there have been countless attempts to capture the essence of Ian Flemming's master spy, James Bond. However, only a few movies have accurately portrayed the exoticism behind the character correctly. This movie is the current classic that Bond lovers were searching for in the mistakes behind Pierce Brosnan's reign. Daniel Craig brilliantly captures the careless charm and renegade attitude behind the character that makes Bond so unique. While Craig portrays Bond with a good heart, he accurately portrays a secret agent willing to break protocol while sacrificing life and limb to get the job done.

Additionally, the filming of this movie could not have been more perfect. The best part of this film is that nothing here is over the top; at least not by comparison to previous Bond attempts. The locations were beautifully selected, the gadgets were realistic enough for anyone to find believable, and the characters were complex enough to capture the essence behind big screen allure.

Something most people won't notice while being ridiculously refreshing, is the fact that the Bond-girls were selected for the parts and not their media hype. In many of the previous Bond films, most of the Bond-girls (such as Denise Richards, Halle Berry, and Teri Hatcher) were only cast because of their wide-spread pop-culture popularity, in turn affecting their over-all weak performances. However, Eva Green and Caterina Murino give stellar performances giving justice to the Bond-girls.

Overall, this movie is the best Bond film since the days of Sean Connery. All comparisons aside, this is everything any movie-go-er would want in an action film, and everything Bond fans love about this classic action film icon.
Casino Royale
womprat9914 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Let me start by saying no actor will ever surpass Sean Connery as superagent 007, but Daniel Craig comes close. To all the naysayers, let me ask: have you ever read the novel? This movie starts off with an MI-6 agent named James Bond who is working to get his "Double-O" status, a license to kill. The rest of the movie follows in putting the pieces that make James Bond into 007. There are some liberties, like changing Le Chiffre's backstory and shifting from Baccarat to Texas Hold-'Em, but these don't detract from the fact that we are watching the evolution of suave superagent from a blunt instrument. Yes, he destroyed the car, got poisoned, got spotted by the earpiece in the stairwell, and let his emotions get the best of him with Vesper, but that's because he's learning these lessons as a fresh Double-0 agent. This isn't the experienced Bond of Pierce Brosnan or the suave Bond of Sean Connery or the infallible Bond of Roger Moore. This is the gritty Bond who let his guard down, rested on his laurels, and ended up being the superspy we all know and love.

Bond never truly loved again until "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," and then never truly again after that. Conversely, I've never loved the Bond franchise as much until now.

"Casino Royale" comes highly recommended... and, before I forget, go read the books. Get to know the real James Bond.
8/10
Bond films coming to an age
rdnk5 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The new film in Bond saga, Casino Royal, is refreshingly different from previous attempts. I hated the foolish attitude of James Bond films starred by Pierce Brosnan, everything went so over the edge that they were more like gadget shows and science fiction than an agent film. The director of the Goldeneye, first Brosnan's Bond film and the only one of his that I actually liked, Martin Campbell gets to deliver the most groundbreaking Bond film of the date.

Daniel Craig, despite his somewhat ragged looks, is an excellent actor, capturing the subtleties of Bond's character in this dramatization of the very first Ian Fleming's Bond book. While being very first book and the beginning of Bond's story, it is unexpectedly transferred to modern age, destroying the chronological order of the Bond films, pretending like there has never been previous stories. The opening sequence is black and white, and shows him gaining the double-0's (kills) in the beginning of his career.

Movie is quite long, and seems to drag somewhere halfway through the story. The director has clearly eye for more drama than what could be expected from your average action flick. There's a lot of dialog, and it seems there's lots of novel like elements, like sequences where Bond constantly discusses about himself, his career and what keeps him moving with the leading actress, Eva Green. I haven't actually read the novel, so can't say if the movie is faithful to it or not, but it certainly looks like a story having a strong novel in the background.

Eva Green plays Vesper Lynd, a government accountant. She's definitely got the looks for a Bond Girl, but she is nothing spectacular as an actress. I didn't like how she turned out to be a double agent, and a traitor, but this must serve as a reason for Bond developing more "colder" attitude towards women. "I've learned my lesson", he says.

More modern action film elements are there too, like almost total absence of the good spirited cartoon action. The fights are very realistic in a gruel way, and afterwards there's lots of blood and sweat in Daniel Craig's face. However, I think the first chase scene was masterfully done. I also were somewhat put-off by the torture scene. Is it more common in action films nowadays or is it just my imagination? It has more layers than those half witted Brosnan flicks, and is, I think one of the best action films coming in recent years. Go see it, now.
10/10
Craig's the right choice as Bond
addictedani19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I've just found out how many bad press accompanied the announcement of Daniel Craig as the new 007 last year. I'm happy now everyone realized: he's the best choice as Bond.

For me, the best since Sean Connery. I liked Roger Moore, but he always seemed to miss sg, and neither Timothy Dalton nor Pierce Brosnan could make me believe they could kick anyone's a** at any time... Especially Brosnan who played Bond since I first got interest in movies. I never believed Halle Berry would get in bed with him in real life, nor the fact he can beat the bad guys. Of course he had hi-tech on his side...

now that is also a positive thing: to leave the extreme high technology alone for good.

To be honest, former Bond films were always the same: there was this around-50 guy who had all the pretty girls.

This Bond is more "real" than Brosnan could ever be. He gets beaten, he gets poisoned, he gets cut. He falls in love. He makes mistakes and he can get angry. All in all, this Bond-in-the-making figure is the way I'd portray Bond.

AS for Daniel Craig, he just fits so well. From his swimsuit scenes (that body is HOT) through his cool, easily-losing-his-mind character to the fighting scenes - and the looks in all, I mean the blond-and-blue-eyed is just way more cool. His Bond is a tough guy, who still has a heart.

I have to add that the only negative thing here are the sometimes silly dialogs. The love-talk (i have no armor anymore-thing) sounded a bit too fake, and I just saw they used it in the trailer, where it sounded actually good, but in the movie it's just not fitting. Also where Bond admits he decided to resign you cannot believe him, it made me thinking, maybe Bond thinks Vesper's the traitor? He sounded like 'Bond pretending love to get something'. I had to realize later that he actually meant it, even though the end is what it is...

After all, this was the best Bond movie I saw in a very long time - I'm happy Pierce Brosnan has been replaced (nothing against him though), and even more glad Daniel Craig - who I did like for his acting in Layer Cake, Munich, Road To Perdition, and in the Hungarian Sorstalanság (well, just one scene), I liked that he wanted to participate in that project. I like the kind of roles he picks and how he portrays his characters.

So, thumbs up for the new Bond, hopefully this will be a very long "relationship" between Craig and the Broccoli family!
10/10
Bringing 007 back to life - The best Bond in years
HankyP17 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The first James Bond movie I remember seeing was a double billing of The Man with the Golden Gun with Live and Let Die at a drive-in theater in the back of my parent's car. I remember asking my father about the gadgets but being way too young to realize how violent or sexy the movie was. I have been a fan of the series until the Timothy Dalton ones. I hated the way the stunts went so far over the top and the total loathing M seemed to have for 007.

I gave up on 007 until this one, and I expected to be disappointed, but today it was all I could talk about at work.

The stunts have been pulled back to something you can suspend disbelief and imagine. M has a disdain for 007, yet a soft spot does exist. I was disappointed that neither Q or Moneypenny made an appearance, but that did not hurt.

*** Here be spoilers ***

I don't know whether to thank the Director, the scriptwriters or both, but they took a very 1 dimensional character and have really given him substance. Daniel Craig did an amazing job of bringing that out. Eva Green had me fooled as much as 007. She was completely believable and one could not help fall in love with her. I would put her up against Dame Diana Rigg any day as the best Bond Girl to date. Judi Dench got the best laughs, she seems to have chemistry with Craig whereas she seemed completely wasted in her previous 007 roles.

*** End spoilers ***

Thank you, thank you. This was the best movie I have seen since The Incredibles.
9/10
A Ball-Breaking, Bruising, Bonanza of a Bond
freemanist18 November 2006
Just back from the first regional screening. I was absolutely blown away by it. Mrs Freemanist has never been to a Bond picture - from her reaction it will not be her last. She was, like me, engrossed.

Bond attempts to foil international terrorism through tackling financial crime, resulting in a credible love interest, jumping over blazing construction sites, high junks on an airport runway, demolition in Venice and a poker showdown with a difference. Death and freedom, blood and tears, tension and euphoria. It's all in here. And much much more. The running time is almost 3 hours.

Daniel Craig is by far the most charismatic Bond yet and frankly, aided by magnificent scripting, he acts the others - even the brilliant and under-rated Timothy Dalton - totally off the screen. This film has broad appeal beyond the "Bond Club" and it is without doubt the best film I have seen in years. By dispensing with silly gadgets, dated humor and stuffy shots of Whitehall, CASINO ROYALE lifts James Bond out of the cult envelope and posts him up as a deep, driven, complex man who, in this film, exposes his weaknesses as well as his considerable strengths. Bond does not just maintain his Englishness, he actually expands this necessary attribute. Defeated yet sensitive, wise and ruthless with complete credibility in a film that allows him to be a fine, believable, central character.

The blatant product placement for a certain corporate's mobile phones, cameras and laptop computers is a bit of an irritation, but so what? After all, this Company actually owns the studio that produced it.

Good to see Richard Branson in a Miami cameo role. Did you all spot him?? Highly recommended. Well done to Daniel Craig.
9/10
Well worth the ride
dick-2716 December 2006
Casino Royale has just opened in Australia. Firstly I must say it is vastly superior to that apogee of inanity, Die another Day.

Craig is unlike any other Bond I have seen. Lacks the humorous one-liners of Connery and is a much more realistic human being than Brosnan.

The plot is not too difficult to work out (I won't tell you the largely predictable finale). Action scenes and special effects are brilliant. The lead female is very well endowed as you'd expect. Craig's hooded eyes are both chilling and show his human side.

Bond falling in love - now that's a first.

All in all immensely satisfying.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Its a new BOND, new BOND Film, really...
imthebest_rt1 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undoubtedly Daniel didn't look as suave & sexy as Pierce or Sean as BOND, and it was expected that he may fail the 007 stature. However that really didn't happen. He managed to fit the role & make it as real as possible. Daniel does not looks like previous Bonds, neither that techy not as savvy. But he looks brutal, he looks hard, he looks raw & he looks REAL.

Movie has a fair storyline telling how James Bond, 007 came into existence. How he became the BOND he is known as. And all of it has been portrayed nicely. A slick storyline has been well presented and executed.

Its story of a man who has been unexpectedly & untimely promoted to the stature of a double 'O' (007) agent. He wants to do a lot & has his own ways of doing things. He's sent to play a game of card where millions are on stake, so as to defeat & capture Le Chiffre & Terrorist Funding Organizations. Vesper is his associate or financial adviser. He looses the money & then wins the game unexpectedly. For this he is captured & tortured to get the money back. Bond is as hard & strong so he never looses it until he is rescued. Till this time he has lost his heart to Vesper & wants to be settled with her. He transfers the money to the account stated by Vesper which is not the Govt account but actually he has been cheated by Vesper. She conned him & takes all his money to his boyfriend. Bond finds the cheats kills them. Also he kills his feelings, his love and becomes JAMES BOND 007! A few scenes, like the chase sequence or the climax look magnificent, and so does the movie. Eva Green is as beautiful & gracious in the role of Vesper. Mads Mikkelsen also looks okay as the Le Chiffre (Gulshan Grover could have been a fair choice too).

At the end movie really belongs to Daniel Craig & he is the real star of the movie (he had to be of course). He has portrayed Bond in a new color which looks different but great (would have loved to see Hrithik Roshan as the BOND too, he really rocks). Its a different but great Bond Film. Seems Bond may see a new light with his new ventures with Daniel.

ALL THE BEST!!!
10/10
The Best movie of 2006
jb1211-111 February 2007
Casino Royale is a prequel to all of the other James Bond movies. It tells how James Bond became 007 and even shows Bond meeting Felix Leiter (Played by Jeffery Wright). Daniel Craig stars as James Bond, Eva Green as Vesper Lynd, and Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre (the bad guy). This is about Bond trying to bring down and capture Le Chiffre who handles the money of terrorists and terrorist organizations by going under cover in a high stakes poker tournament. Casino Royale is filled with really, really exciting action sequences and plenty of double- crossing. Although this movie lacks some of the classic Bong gadgets you won't care when you see the spectacular action scenes.

I went to this movie thinking that Daniel Craig would not make a very good Bond but I was very wrong. Craig is now tied with Roger Moore as my favorite Bond of all time. I really enjoyed Casino Royale and it has become easily one of my favorite movies of all time.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
That last hand... nearly killed me
GoldeneyeQuinn18 November 2006
Bond is Back, and as you know it is Daniel Craig that is now in the black tux as James Bond, newly appointed as 007. I'm a huge James Bond fan, and coming into the film I hoped it would be excellent. I was dead wrong it was better than excellent! I've seen all the Bonds and this one is different. It has a certain feel to it that none of the others have. And its not just because Daniel is the new Bond, it is something else about it that to me can't really be fully explained. I don't want to give anything away for you but I will tell you that this is a must see. In the start James gets his double-0 upgrade, and it is one of the coolest pre-titles yet. Then there is action, and I mean action. Not a bunch of 3D monkeys running around with immensely fake explosions going off. No, I'm talking about real stunts, and hardcore hand-to-hand combat, like the old days of Bond. Then there is poker and Felix, who is finally back! Finally there is something never before seen Vesper and Bond in love. Then of course the end: James becomes Bond! I will say this film moved me as a James Bond fan, which does not mean it will move you. I think anyone that enjoys a good movie should see this. -The final seen in the movie is possibly the best seen in the entire series-as a fan it gave me goose bumps, and will put a smirk on the face of anyone who knows Bond. P.S. This movie has single-handedly put the franchise back into commission, and will keep it going. The next one is due out in November 2008, and I can't wait. The main point I got from Casino Royale is "Bond is Back" and I hope he never goes away.
10/10
Three reasons why it's the best Bond.
hitechcleaning513 December 2009
First is Daniel Craig and the lead actors. Craig is tough, convincing and breaks the mold by substituting overt sexuality, quirky one-liners and clever gadgets with bloody-knuckle action and steely body language. His interaction with Eva, who is by far the best Bond girl, is quite subtle. Thy spar at first, but as the plot unwinds, she is torn by the conundrum of saving her boyfriend and falling for Bond at the same time. During the shower scene, one must wonder if her distress results from the bloody skirmish in the stairwell or from her guilt for betraying him. The other actors fed their inputs to Craig and Green with acumen and zeal. Next, the story itself, while loosely fitting the Fleming cloak, is vastly different in portrayal and conforms to the basal conflicts so skillfully brought forward from the original and so vividly re-created using technology, solid physical action, extraordinary make-up (Bond's blood and bruises seem so authentic), great costuming and dramatic special effects.

Craig is so believable as a "rookie" OO7. While nettling M with his antics, she can not contain her need to defend him as she would a favorite son. He makes no excuses. He sniffs out a lead until it is dead, but only after it carries him to the next. As he kills them in rapid succession, he unravels Le Cheffre. Clearly taken by Vesper, he, not knowing her underlying agenda, is unable to detect her deceit which she finds easy to conceal due to her true feelings for him often over-riding the ugly truth that drives her. She is not the typical bond girl, but the anachronisms of progression, since this was the first OO7 novel, and the last to be adapted for film, make her role far from stereotypic, a change worth mentioning.

Finally, the direction infuses life into a host of enormously talented actors, and the directors extract the most from those behind the scenes. The concert of all three elements makes Casino Royale, even though quite lengthy, the standard by which all future Bond films, and other shared genre films, will be judged. As to how this one can be out-done remains to be seen.
9/10
The Best Bond movie in years!
Nick_Slide19 November 2006
Super spy James Bond receives his license to kill and is assigned to enter a high-stakes poker game against Le Chiffre, a man who finances terrorist groups. Based on the novel by Ian Fleming.

Not since Sean Connery have I seen an actor play James Bond with such intensity, realism and sarcasm as Daniel Craig! Craig is a fantastic actor, when you see him in action you believe he can do the things he does on film. This Bond is unlike all the previous Bonds, this one has emotions and bleeds.

The story is reminiscent of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Expect some surprises along the way! This is a must see movie for both Bond fans and non-Bond fans alike; action, drama and a bit of humor makes this the must see movie of the year and one of the best Bond movies ever!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Great Reinvention of Bond
thehomealonedude15 November 2008
This is a great reinvention of the Bond series. What's great about the Bond series is it's ability to change with the times, and it's great watching the Bond films from DR NO through to the latest installments, because you get to witness the decades go buy, and different types of Bond films from classic Bond (GOLDFINGER, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, GOLDENEYE) to gritty Bond films (LICENCE TO KILL, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, FROM Russia WITH LOVE and now this, so there's always something for everyone). I have to confess I'm a Pierce Brosnan fan, mainly because I was 9 when I went to the cinema to see GOLDENEYE with my Dad (though he told me to lie about my age if asked at the cinema since it was a 12), so he is the Bond of my era. But that doesn't mean from the get go I didn't want Daniel Craig, I knew he could be a great Bond because he's such a great actor, obviously I didn't think he looked like a Bond, but watching this movie I really began to like his Bond. That doesn't mean he's my favourite, because like people who grew up with Connery will always say Connery is the best, I'll always list Brosnan as my favourite. But Craig's performance is solid, he does lack the sauveness of Brosnan, but he's more gritty and when he kicks ass he's so believable. He's absolutely fantastic in the action sequences, and this film has some great action sequences, especially one of my favourite Bond sequences near the beginning in Madagascar, you'll see why. This is the 21st installment, and a fresh start for Bond, kind of a first episode in a second series of Bond films, with the first 20 being series one. 8.5/10
9/10
Bond is Back!!
PHeath6016 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From the moment this movie started, we knew we were in for a treat of action, intrigue and suspense!! Bond is most definitely back, and Daniel Craig brings to this role an edginess that we really enjoyed seeing.

We are big fans of the Bond Films...and there have been a few stumbles in the chain of movies, so it was very refreshing to see the movie get right to work with an opening sequence that had me holding my breath. Amazing stunts & scenery changes are combined to make the first 10 minutes of the film an important "grab" for your attention, and happily the rest of the film doesn't let you down.

There is one scene of torture that is a bit hard to take, with Bond's nudity and the implied area of torture making my husband and I both squirm a bit.. so if you have younger sensitive viewers in your family, be forewarned. This film definitely earns it's PG-13 rating in that scene. The rest of the movie stays more in line with the typical Bond stylized violence.

The Villain of the movie, Le Chiffre is quiet, calm, almost handsome, and played to perfection by Mads Mikkelsen. He brings to the role an air of determination, calmness and quiet desperation. He is a villain that we enjoyed to hate.

This is a movie that we will definitely be purchasing and watching often. We are looking forward to seeing Daniel Craig in the next Bond film!!

Enjoy!
8/10
Bond Is Back (to Basics)
Rogue127 April 2007
Many things have been said about this new Bond, some good, some bad but most of it with passion.

Daniel Craig's Bond seems closer to that of the Flemming creation, Without, what would normally be considered 'Pin-up' looks, this Bond relies more on an undeniable charisma stemming from sheer force of personality.

I really did appreciate the lack of Gizmo's and Gadgets, treating us to an agent who succeeds by his own wit and guile rather than Q division's wizardry and making a more believable action hero.

The showing of flaws in his personality make him a more accessible, and hence more human figure, less "commic book" as some of the previous Bonds' had become at times.

The comedy is tonned down and a darker character is brought to the fore, after watching Casino Royale, I truly believe that Daniel Craig's Bond is a killer, not a murderer or psychopath, mearly terribly efficient at his task. If you stand in the way of this Bond, expect no quips, no charm, just a quick and emotionless death.

It is often said that men leave thease films wanting to be Bond. Given a choice of the whole line, I's want to be this one.
10/10
how can this film be topped?
StarshipTrouper1 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
what an an amazing film.Daniel Craig is brilliant.he is better than even Sean Connery.he is utterly convincing as this raw and ruthless bond.the foot chase early on is exhilarating,the stunt man being pursued is incredibly athletic.the film is much darker and without all the gadgets, brings realism to the film.the love story is utterly convincing.eva green is ravishing , the vulnerability of bond we have read about is absolutely true.

the script is without doubt the best of all 22 i would also say the fights are the best staged of any film i have ever seen. having watched the film 20 times,listened to the soundtrack probably 50 or so times,i now think it has the best soundtrack of the series.better than any of barry's-my favourite movie composer. this film is almost flawless.probably the greatest action film i have ever seen.certainly the best bond film.how could it be other wise. the best bond,best script,best villain,best girl,best fights,best foot chase.best opening credits(along with goldfinger).no corny one liners,no q,no gadgets (almost)
8/10
One of the Daniel Craig's Best Movies, an Enjoyable Action Movie!!
desert-jackets18 September 2013
Finally James Bond is back and still doing as well as before! The 007 has unluckily decline more than it has stunned over the last decades but still I am pleased to watch that Martin Campbell has set the perimeter back into the Bond sequences. Well there are some people who think that Daniel Craig as James Bond could not pull it off, but he did it perfectly and with style and a hard and tough edge, not seen since Sean Connery.

This movie is packed with complete action hero material, but he actually looks like if he could, he would kill you. From his opening scene, this movie will stop blinking your eyes for 20 minutes. The film is of high class, from the film making to the three dimensional villain to the Bond's quick learning bends. This is among the James Bond's best movies for sure! You have to see it to believe me. Daniel Craig is superb as James Bond and going from that end everything in it is very pleasurable, frightening and exciting just because of James Bond.

There are some things that we are not looking too promising when this 007 Daniel Craig was about to release in theaters to the public globally. I especially saw this movie at an opening premiere and I was very amazed. Having never been a big fan of Bond, I wasn't actually expecting much from this movie. But the character of Daniel Craig as James Bond shown in this movie may little bit disappoint followers of its previous versions, but the news is that it is Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. Let me tell you that first half of this movie is excellent and the African scenes where James Bond chases his excavation back to the embassy are among the most thrilling action scenes you will see in any movie. Similarly, the bombing scene at the Miami airport shows that Bond can be a cold hearted killer when he has to be. One of the best elements of this blockbuster movie is the use of dashing and cool-looking James Bond leather jacket. I know some of my friend wearing the same styles of jackets and finally I found out that they were ordering great deals from a website, desert leather.com where they sell the genuine leather jackets as worn in Hollywood movies by great celebrities. Thanks to desert leather.com. The exact leather jacket which Daniel Craig is wearing in this Casino Royale is also available at the above mentioned online place.

Craig is magnificent in the role of James Bond in my opinion and he's helped in by a lack of humor situations and characters as seen in previous sequences. This Casino Royale respires new life in to the cinema authorization that is more than 40 years old. Many columnists portray it as the best movie of Bond ever. Therefore, once again it's a good movie, actually it is a great film and mostly it's just a Bond movie. No hesitations to give it an 8/10.
1/10
uneducated punk that wants to be James bond
RL886 July 2010
I can't believe people here saying this is a good J.B. movie, let alone "the best".

All the refinement and 'glamour', all the good taste, inherent to James Bond movies has been thrown down the WC. We are presented a rude, uneducated punk as a Secret Agent, but the height of it, is it's supposed to be "cool". 'Bond' slips through 5 stars hotels (as usual) with a ghetto-like attitude. The plot is really childish. Even it really makes no sense.... he leaves the Poker table with millions in play like 5 times without even giving a reason. He blows it over and over again, 'profanating' James Bond quotes randomly. The two martini scenes are lamentable. The first is lamentable, and the second one is even more lamentable. The first love scene is ... well ... I think the actors didn't believe in it even during the filming process.

This film feels like a mix of Steven Seagal and Chuck Norris with a smoking and a mobile phone.

Do yourself a favor. Sleep if it's late at night. Go for a walk if during the day. Forget this movie.
7/10
Could be much better......
chinesefan26 November 2006
Yes, this Bond film is a far different from those in the past except for the title sequence, M and the dialogue. Thus, making it the least Bond-like film. In fact, more like Die-Hard Begins. I am sure Bond fans will miss those gadgets and the Bond theme which are minimum here. Hope they will bring them back in the future. It could have been much better if not because of too many co-incidental or accidental situations that favor Bond during those important action scenes. Just too many making them unconvincing although the fights are exciting and realistic. Wonder why they choose this actress to be Vesper. Her acting is not good enough. Her make-up for her glamour entrance to the casino was a great mistake or failure. Penelope Cruz will be a better choice. I would have given it a 9/10 if not for the above flaws.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One Gadget, No car chase...But God damn it, an amazing storyline and fantastic setting. The best BOND MOVIE
doc-aneesh9 December 2006
The makers of "Casino Royale" chose the perfect story for the 21st Bond film... The story is amazing, unlike the monotonous 'villain tries to take over the world' stories like 'Goldeneye' and 'Tomorrow never dies'

However, many fans wouldn't appreciate the fact that there's more use of Bond's fist than his Car or his watch. Maybe that's because it is Bond's first mission as a 00 agent. Nevertheless, breathtaking action sequences...Wonderful acting and amazing last minute changes...

Although, the first foot chase is superb, it is quite long...But the stunts are Top-class. Unlike other Bond movies...Bond takes a girl seriously, the villain (Le Chiffre) is scared of Mr. White and the terrorists, and the Bond theme is played twice only i suppose. But, thats what makes Casino Royale different...Whats the fun in all Bond movies being the same right?

If anyone asked me if I'd watch the movie again...I'd say 'YES' any number of times
10/10
Review from the crew of Prague worked on Casino Royale film
radzar24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had the pleasure to spend 36 hours with Martin Campbell, Daniel Craig,Michael G.Wilson and Simon Abkarian in the Vitkov Memorial in Prague (killing Dimitros in Body Worlds expo) and the Daniel' escape from the building, shooting in the front of Ministry of Transportation in Prague shoot in 25.4.2006. Shooting on the Vitkov memorial in 7 and 8.February 2006 was very hard. I remember was very, very cold in the building, the heaters weren't able to heat such a big area and all from the 400 crowds including many black people had to pretend warm weather in Miami. Which was very funny. Between the shots they were walking with the blankets on their backs. Many of them was sleeping on the seats. So I remember that maybe Mr. Wilson said that in his life never saw so many people sleeping during the day. The czech staff had to put big word pressure to put some people back on the screen when they were waiting for their time again. Working as crowd even better crowd as custodian require wait many,many hours when each of the set is preparing and then on the shooting repeating,repeating to have perfect shot. In the front of Ministry of Transportation 25.4.2006 were brought on the ship cabs and cars from Miami including palm trees. I remember that many Prague visitors from the river across (river Vltava )on the ship took their best Prague picture from their vacation. This 3 hard working days took about 10 minutes in the movie so I can as a view from the inside can imagine whole movie "sacrifice" from the cast and crew. Martin Campbell is very precious man. Behave of Daniel Craig was excellent and no one can't doubt that he wasn't one of us. Thank you Daniel. Also Michael G.Wilson (producent) was all the time present on the set so became part of the movie as we can see him in small role as a police chief with black glasses. From what I saw in the cinema after all was very impressed. Martin Campbell salve the Bond series again as in 1995. Unfalse viewer adventure. Thank you for be the small part of this great movie.

Radim from Prague
10/10
Excellent. Ian Fleming would be proud
Actorsactiondotorg9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This film was breathtakingly exciting.

It's an adrenaline shot that resuscitates this aging 007 legacy.

This is.... svelt grit.

It's entertainment value is ony rivaled by its invested emotional value.

All aspects deliver (unless you're expecting a cliché rehash of GoldenKillNeverDieTomorrow)

I believe Ian Fleming would be pleased with this film. After all, it's his baby - his characters - his debut book, and it was done well.

CASINO ROYALE (2006) is the inaugural mission to prove worthy as a 00, and to save the world one espionage intrigue at a time and maybe spare his heart from the crosshairs.

And it's written and acted and well done with Overdue respect and Overwhelming adrenaline. And the only Overkill is its impact that compels one to see it again.

Bravo to the cast and screenwriters/Fleming readers involved.

This film is one simply easy to see bright spot of 2006.

I approve of the reboot/change.

It's Craig's gig for a stretch. Have at it, man.
10/10
A Bond to Remember..
eeojj20 November 2006
Daniel Craig is the new age Bond. He actually makes James Bond believable as a secret spy agent. His toughness in the stunts performed are unmatched by any previous Bond. Craig pulled off the Bond character in Casino Royale with flying colors and then some. I hope that this is the new Bond for good...tough, smart, cool, calculating, mean S*B - but human and vulnerable(pays the consequence for this in the movie) - that you would think someone has to be in real life if they were to be a secret spy agent. As for the movie, this addition to the already made 20 previous Bond movies keeps the franchise alive and well for the next generation of 007 fans. I went to the theatre to catch a late Saturday night showing and while waiting in line could see people of all ages wanting to see the movie. Parents taking their 10, 11 and 12 year old to see what is one of their favourite movie characters. A new generation of 007 fans were born this night because Craig and the new Bond are the real deal! 10/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
totally blown away here!!!!
irisdogg_15 December 2006
I can honestly say this is with out a doubt THE BEST BOND MOVIE i have ever seen. Actually this is one of the best movies i've seen and that's quite something.

I thought when i first heard that Daniel Craig was the new Bond that he didn't fit the part at all.... Ohh boy was i wrong!!! Not only does he fit the part and does is so brilliantly, he's just got to be one of the best Bond-s ever.

The movie was just truly amazing. The opening scene seemed a tad unreal because it really just doesn't seem possible but as you go further into the movie you just don't care any more. I think this is the best Bond movie ever because it isn't filled with stupid phrases and clichés and it make Bond some what a real person rather then some dude that has a awesome job and a pretty face. He's more human in this movie and i think that is all because Craig is just a great actor.

So two thumbs up for this one, it's great and you wont be disappointed.
7/10
007 Heaven
pixiesrule7730 September 2008
Daniel Craig dons the famous Tux as a new grittier "Bond" in this spectacular and intense 007 outing.

No doubt there was a fair amount of eyebrow raising ("Roger Moore-style" obviously) when the blonde Daniel Craig was chosen as the latest incarnation of the super-cool British spy, but I'm more than happy to report that he carries the role off with steely aplomb, managing to bring a colder, more mercenary feel to the somewhat cartoonish elements of previous actors (Sean Connery withstanding).

The sets are spectacular, the chases and fights exciting and brutal, the women wonderfully sexy (Eva Green especially), and the poker game finale both tense and engrossing (if statistically highly unlikely due to the odds of dealt cards being millions to one, but never mind that). Critics doubted that you could make Bond relevant for the 21st century but director Martin Campbell (who also oversaw "Goldeneye") has managed it with panache. He might not care how his Martini is fixed but Bond is back – take a hard look.
9/10
Best bond film since goldfinger
georgecann200330 November 2006
This bond film is very good it has all the elements that make a good bond film and more, Daniel Craig is a very good James bond, there are stunning action sequences, a good villain, a complex but compelling story-line and funny one-liners all of these elements come together to make a brilliant bond film.I am a big fan of the Sean Connery bond films and i wouldn't say that casino royale was quite as good as Dr. no, goldfinger or from Russia with love but i would say that Daniel Craig is the second best James bond. For this the twenty-first bond film martin Campbell has adopted a realistic approach there are no over the top action sequences or un-believable gadgets just pure James bond charm and ruthlessness,
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bond just carries on doing his thing
charambo4 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The first Bond film I ever saw was On Her Majestys Secret Service, and is still one of the best Bond films, along with Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylight and Tomorrow Never Dies. Casino Royale with Daniel Craig is average, not because of Craig, but because of the story. Its simply too long. You have Bond resigning from the service a full 20 or 30 minutes before the end of the film, and you know it wont happen, so the bad guy either really didn't die, ( it was too quick for him ) or the woman is up to no good. As to Craigs Bond, excellent, and he can act, just look at the torture scene and you know this guy is good. Martin Campbell is a good action director. Lets hope the next Bond film is better. Carry On Bond
9/10
Great Film!!! but I Got Strange After taste ......
ballplayer27000023 December 2008
I had a such a opportunity to see this film on Advanced screening presented by Sony last night. There have been very controversial and negative gossips and publicities about this upcoming film ever since Sony pictures announced Daniel Craig for new James Bond. After the screening ended I felt very strange. Well, movie was great. It has great physical actions, less explosions and CGI, and focusing on characters great plots, great lines with surprisingly great delivery. It clearly portraits where James Bond was coming from. So as sake of the criticism of the film, it was darn good film. The movie was darker and more realistic than previous James Bond sequels, besides On her Majesty Secret Service (which is also great film) but those elements made this film great. My cons on this film would be: Daniel Craig's bodybuilders body. I always except old-fashioned hero as James Bond with natural athlete's body. Like Once Sean Connery possessed. And he does not have cookie cutter elegance and charm of Bond. It does not make him a terrible Bond just to be fair. I just didn't like to see James Bond is transforming into something different. Just because of movie got realistic and darker, it lost it's corniness and fantasy aspects of film which is the charm of the franchise, but I think it was inevitable to make this good film. For the best or worst, this franchise has evolved something different, and we all are gonna be judge of this updated Bond franchise..........
9/10
Best Bond
wintertwister24 November 2006
This is to the spy genre what the Spiderman movies are to the super-hero genre. Or even like "Batman Begins." This maybe the best Bond movie. Daniel Craig is excellent at Bond in acting and action. This Bond actually has some great fighting moves that the typical martial arts movie lacks--the moves look real. And Craig definitely looks like he could hold his own in a real fight. The pace of the movie is steady but not frantic. Having said that, there are lots of great fast moving scenes. The gadgets in this movie actually are real life types of things for the most part--no bizarre jet packs for no apparent reason here. These gadgets blend in to Bond's mission and do not stand out as gadgets for their own sake. There is also a dark side to the movie as human life actually seems to have dignity and people aren't killed for the sake of killing. There are many killings though, but there are reactions to their deaths and some level of accountability. This Bond lacks camp--which is a good thing to lack. Some of the other Bonds were similar to the 60's Batman series. This movie shows the dirty nature of his work and the grit of his world. However, he doesn't have the total unreal relationships with women like previous Bond movies--those in which Bond has a new woman every 15 minutes. There is a small point that seems to drag a bit. But then it picks up the pace again. I was hungry when I saw the movie so I got a bit antsy in that part. I was soon rewarded for my brief patience. The locations also add to the effectiveness of the movie. The atmosphere of the Casino Royale drew the audience in to the scene. It was as if we were all there in the casino. There are many other locations and all of them are well selected. Don't wait for the DVD--the sites and sounds are magnificent on the big screen.
9/10
Finally, Bond gets good!
lathesius26 November 2006
I must admit, I've never been a big Bond fan. The only Bond films I've seen all the way through were Goldeneye and Die Another Day. They just never interested me. They all seemed (especially the Brosnan ones)to be themed around three things; stupid story, stupid women, and some over the top gadgets (Invisible car anyone?) However, Casino Royale has totally changed my perspective on Bond's future. Sitting in the cinema, I felt like a kid all over again. Here is a film that touches pretty much every emotion. Pain, humour, love and excitement, and all of it done in a realistic way.

When I heard that Danial Craig was going to be the new Bond, I did have my doubts. It was just because every other Bond had the same image; dark eyes, dark hair, pretty boy looks. But, my god, Craig really pulls this off, giving Bond that harder, grittier and meaner edge, while at the same time giving the character that essential wit, charm and mystery.

I'm also glad they kept the story to something simple, which is 'Terrorist needs money to fund terrorism and Bond needs to stop it'. It's a very believable storyline for a change. All the women in the film play a valuable part. They actually have purpose, rather than just to stand there and look good while Bond has his way with them. The gadgets are kept to a minimum, but the ones that do pop up are very practical and also, believable. And the action certainly doesn't disappoint. From the crazy free running chase scene at the beginning, to the nerve racking poker game at Casino Royale.

Plus, it needs to be said, the new Aston Martin is a very, very nice car! However, this film suffers from only one big fault. I feel that the twist in the end can be easily spotted, even if you don't know a thing about screenplay structure. It just didn't...merge well into it.

So to round off, Bond is back, bigger, better and grittier. They've gone back to basics, disregarding the other Bond films and starting fresh, and it's the best thing to happen to the franchise, like Batman. If you want a good action film that will excite, make you laugh and make you stand on the edge of your seat then I highly suggest you go and see this film!
The best Bond ever!
staxoffunk13 December 2006
An amazing movie! Finally, we get the Bond Fleming imagined, and it was worth the wait. Daniel Craig absolutely nailed the part of Bond, playing him as a really driven, cold hearted agent.

The action scenes are the best in a long, long time. A lot of the people in the cinema were cheering him on - it's been ages since i've seen an audience get right behind a character the way they did.

There is one small part that made me ask: why? The senseless destruction of the Aston Martin. Brought a tear to the eye, that did.

Hats off to all those involved in this movie. Now, hurry up and get another made real soon.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig owns as James Bond, must watch.
eddyjenkins26 December 2018
This is the badass Bond that will reinvigorate the Bond franchise which has been slackening for some years now. Daniel Craig is amazing as James Bond- I love Pierce Brosnan but Craig owns this role like he was born to play it. Casino Royale has not only re-invented James Bond, but made him relevant for the 21st century. The target audience has shifted. Although there's nothing in Casino Royale that will exclude teenagers, this 007 is aimed squarely at adults. The November release date is also perfect - the film is almost too dark and serious for the kind of lighthearted, mindless fun we associate with summer blockbusters. The action is amazing but brutal(gone are the clean kills associated with Dalton or Brosnan) and many times Bond gets his ass handed to him which feels real. If you haven't seen a Bond film then Casino Royale is a great film to start.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
For the first time in ages I can hardly wait for the next installment of 007.
manny_perdomo25 November 2006
I've been a Bond fan since I saw 'Dr. No' as a kid and was won over by Sean Connery. Bonds 2 through 4 were unworthy, and even though I liked Pierce Brosnan, I can barely recall anything memorable about the last 3 or 4 Bond films. To say I was incredibly impressed by Casino Royale is an understatement. Daniel Craig is quite worthy of the name...Bond, James Bond. Several times during the film, I found myself on the edge of my seat; especially during the many instances of hand-to-hand combat. The plot, though typical Bond, was complicated enough to keep my interest through the 2 and 1/2 hours. For once the Bond women were just right, and Eva Green was refreshing as a smart, sexy brunette, vs. the typical blonde-bimbo Bond girl. As for Craig...the guy can really act and has the muscles to match. He reminds me of a cross between Steve McQueen and Mel Gibson. Leaving the theater I overheard comments about Craig's 'hunky good looks', but I was much more impressed by his talent; the torture scene in particular was quite memorable. Bond is definitely back, and for the first time in ages I can hardly wait for the next installment of 007.
10/10
Perfect Bond!!!!!!!!!!
Presumptuous5 May 2007
Ah........... It's such a pleasant surprise to see an actor who can portray James Bond and actually pull it off with suave sophistication that not only has class, but is actually masculine as well. For decades the Bond series has lacked someone to play the part of 007 to its full potential, and I think Daniel Craig does this job perfectly in Casino Royale. He plays a ruthless, hard-core, yet perceptive, and intelligent human being, which Bond never exactly reveals until now. Audiences have always been familiar with 007 as being a lady's man but never exactly having too much of a mind or a heart either.

This Bond flick and the new actor that portrays him shows a new refreshing start for the series and a hope for more quality 007 films to come.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The best Bond.
kittysaysgo26 March 2022
We'll miss you, Daniel, you were the best Bond and it started with Casino Royale.

Can there be any better installment in the series at instilling a sense of excitement from start to finish while infusing it with truly thoughtful internal moments for its titular character? Even its villains are human.

A truly great moment in the history of the franchise.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
This is not a Bond Movie
usplanman1 November 2012
I like the new bond, unfortunately this was not a Bond Movie! Apparently they wanted to save money on locations and sets. We really miss the original Director.

Missing are the INTERESTING travels through various countries with multiple villains, beautiful ladies to bed, and a World threatening scenario! Also missing is some type of dry humor that is always present in a Bond actor. If you're going to make a Bond movie then don't change the formula!

This wasn't even good for a Non-Bond Movie! Perhaps we can do better in the future and get back to the usual James Bond formula!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Forget what you thought you knew
sko_10016 December 2006
First of all, apologies for the tagline-esquire summary line, but it sums up many, including my own, views of the film. Gone are the days of the invincible Bond, to whom injuries are mere fashion accessories. Gone is the Bond who masks every insecurity with glib retorts.

Welcome to a new age of Bond. What Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig bring to the table is a Bond at the beginning of his development: he has just recently been granted his Double-O status and it shows. When he falls, he groans. His feathers and ego get easily ruffled. When he makes his comebacks, they smack more of self-defence and desperation than the customary flippant indifference. And we get an insight into why he treats women like he later does.

Daniel Craig, with his new spin on the James Bond role has garnered both rave reviews and curses (cynics may with some reason say from women and men respectively) and both are somewhat justifiable. He convincingly plays the damaged action man, and even us guys would have to begrudgingly say he looks good. He also rises to the challenge of the increased emotional demand with admirable ease...he's not called upon to cry but covers pretty much the rest of the emotional spectrum during the film. However, this is a different Bond. For starters, there is the obvious physical difference: where his predecessors were lean and brunette, Craig is blonde and musclebound. His humour is also more wry than the traditional jokes that are JUST about on the acceptable side of cheesy. This Bond is also darker: not enough per se as to lose our sympathy for the protagonist, but as has been oft stated, it is certainly closer to James Bond as Ian Fleming initially intended. Whether this changes are for the better or worse is a matter of personal taste, but Daniel Craig is certainly no Lazenby.

Finally, I'm torn as to Casino Royale's merit as a film. As a fan of the previous movies (yes, even Die Another Day) I was struck by the difference in Bond and tone. We also lose the gadgets in favour of mobile phone technology and internet searches (MI6 using Google?!?). At least the Aston Martins, in all their shiny splendour, remain. And I wasn't personally a fan of the editing. There were perceptible Acts to this film, with stark location changes and objectives to them, and while the plot was never entirely ridiculous (but where they ventured that way, the action justified it) and the segues perfectly acceptable, nevertheless the film lacks the flow of Martin Campbell's previous Goldeneye (a slick specimen of what a Bond movie should be, in my opinion). Each Act and set-piece is expertly executed and I have nothing but utmost respect for all that was done. The action is brilliant, in particular the free-running sequence you've already seen glimpses of in the trailer; the poker, tense (I WOULD advise learning the rules of Texas Hold 'Em first if you haven't already) and the emotional exchanges, charged with all the quality you'd expect from such a well-selected cast.

In short, the movie is quality. The actors are without exceptional brilliant, in particular I would grant Mr Craig a standing ovation, and there are enough nods to the franchise and books (the recipe for the Vesper martini!) to make the fanboys satisfied. The action sequences are tense and downright exhilarating, and as stated, Craig handles these with apparent ease. The only potential downfall, if indeed it is to be thus regarded, is the change in the approach. I personally wasn't a fan of it on paper, but was won over by the calibre of the ingredients, but that is strictly a matter of taste. Either way, you know you're going to watch it, and I'm far from advising against it. Enjoy!

.....

Bond: Give me a vodka-martini.

Bartender: Shaken, not stirred?

Bond: Does it look like I give a damn?
10/10
Fantastic Bond Film
yoder-matthew3 January 2008
I was skeptical when Daniel Craig was announced as the next Bond, but absolutely loved him in Layer Cake so I was eager to see how he worked in such a classic role. While I want to wait for another sample before I come to a conclusion, at least in this film I thought he was fantastic. Just so you can get an idea of where I am coming from, I have seen every Bond film, and don't really have a favorite Bond. Many people refuse to think of Bond as anyone not named Connery or Moore, but I think they have all brought a uniqueness to the character and I quite enjoyed Brosnan and I think Craig is perfect after having seen this film.

Whether or not people agree with the new Bond choice, the movie itself was wonderful. I was very excited to finally see an official Casino Royale movie since the Ian Flemming book was astounding. I went out and read the book again as soon as the movie was announced and enjoyed it immensely. I saw this on opening day in the theater and was anxious to see the HD release as well. The story is well written and the acting is everything you would expect from a Bond film. Without getting into specifics, Casino Royale is the first Bond that I really felt emotion towards 007. It obviously took a character change to change the character (if that makes sense) and Craig pulls it off well. Hardcore Bond fans should enjoy this and even if this is your first, I think you will enjoy it by itself. If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and make some time for 007.

And I couldn't make this comment complete without saying that Eva Green is heavenly beautiful and a wonderful selection as always for the Bond girl :)
10/10
Surprisingly Good
pratibha200415 April 2008
I don't know how this picture got to be so good. Maybe it's all Paul Haggis. Martin Campbell is the director and while the movie was obviously storyboarded, and storyboarded well, this Bond movie makes sense in a way the other ones (even with Sean Connery) never did. I also believed Daniel Craig showed a range of emotion and energy that no other Bond actor has. The story line together with the shot composition and the male and female lead carry the film quite well. The only other movie I have liked as much is Revolver, a British film by Guy Ritchie. Other 2007 movies I've appreciated are Next, The Breach, and Syriana, and No Country For Old Men.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
just bond
gerardo_guzman25 November 2006
I saw the movie last night, and I got what I paid for ---entertained---. I enjoyed the movie for what it is, an entertaining film. It gave me everything I wanted to see in a Bond film (high tech items, a lot of cool action, hot chicks and an unreal spy story). The movie has its downs but overall it is a good action film. If you are the type the of person that enjoys a good special effects type of action, intrigued by new tech toys and like watching beautiful women, then this movie is for you. Also, I have to say that this movie is probably the best Bond movie in a long time. The action and special effects are exciting but not really new. The women in the movie are beautiful but not drop dead gorgeous and there are not many high tech toys but enough to keep the movie good.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond has grown up!
Two-Too-Many25 November 2006
I've seen all the Bond-movies several times. I am a big Bond-fan for some 30 years now ... so what about this new one...? Well, forget Sean, George, Roger, Timothy and Pierce ... this is the beginning of an NEW ERA. BOND HAS GROWN UP!! WOW, what a movie; this is the Bond we've waited for for so long!! Why is that? Well: way much better acting, much more realistic and raw, a very good plot ... etcetera. A MUST SEE!! The poker-sequence is excellent. Congratulations Daniel, you ARE Bond!! My message to all the Bond-fans: enjoy it to the full! My message to those who did'nt love the Bond-genre: TRY IT just once more! This is the birth of a new series of a raw, romantic, sadistic, very athletic BOND!! A MUST SEE !!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"Do I look like I give a damn?"
aerojoe200018 November 2006
Certainly not! Daniel Craig jumps into the James Bond tux with aplomb, throwing skeptics and critics aside like an evil henchmen. There is no doubt that producer Broccoli's choice for the newest Bond was right on the mark. Craig captures the screen and never lets go with the truest representation of Fleming's Bond yet. You will even see that Bond has a soft spot and actually lets his humanity show more that enough times. Eva Green also shows brightly as Vesper Lynd and Mads Mikkelson grows on you to become one of the more sinister baddies of the Bond franchise. The story falls a bit toward the end before a shattering climax and a brief glimpse of a now polished and learned Bond at the ready for his next mission.

Take a seat and hold on for the ride!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not a Bond, but a great action movie!
DVD_Collector8925 July 2007
I'm not really a fan of all the bond movies. I've just seen a few ones of them, but it's enough to notice, that "Casino Royale" isn't a real Bond movie. But this doesn't make this film any worse. The action sequences are great, I think Daniel Craig does a good job and although the film consists to a big part of an poker game (and I don't like poker that much!)I think all the 2 1/2 hours are exciting and quite entertaining.

I can understand bond fans, if they say "its the worst bond film ever" or "this isn't a real bond film" - because it isn't one! But for me the film is a great independent action movie, which has nearly all an actioner has to have! Concincing actors, style, great action scenes and I was never bored during this film! I can recommend this film to everyone who doesn't expect an typical Bond film! Real Bond fans may will be greatly disappointed!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond Back on Form
the_iconoclast-126 November 2006
Casino Royale is the long awaited return to form that true Bond fans have longed for. Gone is the reliance on implausible high tech gadgets, smarmy double entendre, and hammy over acting.

Craig has brought a real sense of credibility and understanding of the character to the viewer. His portrayal shows Bond as he really is: a stubborn, arrogant, calculating, cold blooded killer, something that Dalton was shot down in flames for trying to convey to uninterested audiences mid eighties.

In short Casino Royale is an astounding leap back from the brink for the Bond franchise in terms of both production quality and story ,firmly establishing Daniel Craig as one of if not possibly the best Bond ever. Which quite frankly borders on treasonous for a Scotsman to say.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
What Bond should really be like
graememurray8019 November 2006
Im not a Huge Bond fan but this one is what i think it really should be all about , no cheesy plots just a great storyline and a cast of excellent actors. Daniel Craig makes the most realistic Bond yet he just looks right playing the role and takes it to a whole new level , looks like they tried to change the layout a bit and make it much darker than the original movies and bring it bang up to date. So basically in my opinion which doesn't count for much really this is the best Bond movie i have seen yet , no far fetched gadgets and over the top plots just a great movie over all and Daniel Craig puts in an excellent performance , so everyone should just go watch the movie and just stop thinking he is a rubbish James Bond because he is blonde .
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Mission accomplished, and then some.
booyatom17 November 2006
After seeing Casino Royale, I wanted to be James Bond. So right off the bat, the new 007 film succeeded at something.

His lifestyle is awesome and not one kid, or even a grown man for that matter, doesn't aspires to be him. At least for one day. He "meets" pretty girls, blows stuff up, runs after bad guys and plays with amazing gadgets. So how have recent Bond films been so bad? Bond works for some undisclosed, and obviously non-existent, agency. Right there, Bond-story writers can exploit this. Nothing is grounded in reality; Bond can do whatever he wants. He has everything at his disposal.

The problem, however, was that most James Bond actors were unable to get this character off the ground. Sure, Brosnan was suave and witty, but he wasn't bold enough. Nor was he rough enough. He was the type of guy who, just before killing a bad guy, would think like hell to deliver a one-liner. Or drink a martini.

But Craig just shoots them in the face. Then kids around.

Daniel Craig is key to this film. He's cold and unbreakable. A perfect example of this is when he's being tortured for information. Let's just say he keeps his mouth shut (and puts his manhood aside).

The plot is also key. The main difference between this one and the other Bond films is that the plot is easy to follow. It takes its time to unfold. We aren't rushed into things.

I admire the director who decided to layer the Bond character first and foremost. Here, Bond has just been given the "007" status. Instead of just telling us this in order to situate us, it is taken further. The second or third scene, which takes place in Uganda, is as exciting an experience as real-life sky-diving. Bond is a new 007, we know this already. Being a rookie, he takes things kind of far; all to our benefit though. Instead of abiding by strict international rules of engagement (for "secret servicemen"), Bond chases a rather acrobatic Namibian bad guy around some Ugandan city, breaks into the Namibian embassy, kills the bad guy (which he can't do, really) and blows up the joint (which he also can't really do). All for a cell phone. His boss is mad as hell, but we, on the other hand, are quite content.

Now, I don't know much about stunts. But, I do know when they're well executed and appreciate them when they look real. In Casino Royale, they do. The best example is the Uganda chase. However, I really enjoyed the choreography involved in a certain stairway fight inside Casino Royale. Bond is fighting an African bad guy. Just before the fight though, the sexy Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) was with 007. So when the fight breaks out, she's in it too. The two men fight their way down some stairs. I simply found it ingenious to have Vesper there, dodging stuff as she gets dragged along. The continuity is kept, and I appreciated that.

As I said, Daniel Craig is key. I'm very happy that he's signed on to do at least one more Bond movie. I think he's THE ONE. In CR, he's a stone cold killer. In one scene, he's making out with a beautiful girl whom we were led to believe, by way of a sensual close up, he fell for on the beach. A love at first sight thing. Her husband, a bad guy that Bond is trying to corner, is gone for the night, and she tells Bond this. The bad guy has left for Florida. Bond is in the Bahamas. Without thinking twice, he scrams. This could have been done without the girl. But in getting her involved, it just goes to show us how dedicated Bond is.

Craig also shows flexibility when he has to. Bond falls in love with Vesper. So much so that he quits "the agency". So, Craig does it all: hard-nosed and emotional. Props to him.

Casino Royale drags a little at some points, especially in the long poker game. But, I enjoy poker and understood what was going on. Even if you don't though, it doesn't matter. The point is not what happens during the game. In the end, we know someone will win and someone will lose. Look at the actors' expressions; look at what's going on in the background with the other characters. These say it all. But the poker part of the film drags a little anyhow.

This movie is a must. You'll be entertained, no doubt about it. And the character is absolutely compelling. Girls, you'll be charmed by him, and guys, you'll want to be him.
10/10
Not since Connery's time...
phildo_lotr20 November 2006
This was hands down the best Bond I have ever seen, second only to From Russia With Love. From Russia With Love was the last real spy movie in a line of films that were supposed to be all about spying. The writing and cinematography are excellent. From the very start you are intrigued and caught up in the story. The first 20 minute foot chase scene will have you with your mouth open by the end. Daniel Craig does a great job donning the arrogant mantle of James Bond. Moreover, this film is not focused on silly gadgets and useless technology. It is all about him and using his force, skill, wit, charm, and mind to win the day. Like I said, this would be second for me in Bonds of all time, and trust me I have seen them all more than once. Cheers!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good action a bit hard to follow
Jeff_Donnah16 December 2006
I saw Casino Royale today. Overall it was a good solid movie. The action scenes were really well done. I particularly enjoyed the first major action sequence (I will spare the details for those who are going to see it).

The one thing I didn't like about it was the story line. At times it was difficult to follow. The seemed to be several villains in the movie, but I found it confusing to track how they were associated to one another at times.

Overall a enjoyable action flick.

I recommend it as a rental.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
template changed all right
sanmansp10 December 2006
save the world, nuclear bomb, exotic cars and gadgets - i could think of bond movies in this template.....and oh yeah the girls in the intro video.....

template changed all right; bond straightened up and hardened - the re-invention of the persona was what i liked best, crude - unsharpened - hardcore.

half monk - half hit-man >> fits Daniel Craig 'Perfect', not the smooth sophisticated bond you have have seen so far - a much ruthless mean machine in a tuxedo, who plays the cards as well.

as they say - 'don't think out of the box > tear open the box'
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Casino Royale - A New Beginning
raziel-157-56772611 September 2011
The year is 2006 and we have a new Bond and he's blonde. EON productions decision to reboot the franchise by taking the character back to its roots with a new actor might have not been a bad idea after all. In fact, it was a good one, Casino Royale was one of the top grossing Bond movies of all time when it was released. During the Brosnan era, it was unimaginable to think of a replacement. He was the perfect Bond and had brought a unique style to the character and a renewed interest among younger audiences. After Die Another Day, when it was confirmed that Pierce Brosnan would not be reprising his famous role of the spy who saves the world, the ball fell into English actor Daniel Craig's court. Martin Campbell who launched Brosnan in his first Bond outing was also chosen to direct Craig in Casino Royale. Though there seemed to be many who doubted his casting as the super spy, Daniel Craig proved them wrong. His success lay in the fact that the character was made as realistic as possible, he fit the role of a cold blooded assassin convincingly earning his Double O status, making occasional mistakes and showing a strong emotional side which still needs to be tamed.Daniel Craig's Bond is similar to the likes of Timothy Dalton in that the character possesses the much needed seriousness and unpredictability in taking actions. Craig is definitely the new generation Bond, only some of his gadgets seem to be missing. Link to the original article.

http://pensorswords.blogspot.com/2011/09/casino-royale-review.html
9/10
Best Bond Movie since Sean Connery 007 Era
dunkel_berg2517 December 2006
This movie kicks ass! I already imagined it would be more true to Flemmings writing than the other Bond movies because of the title, but I was surprised. I had the impression that this 007 pictured for the first time what everything is about. For example: What it takes to became a 00 agent? Who would fit the profile? What kind of a person would kill and sleep with married women with no guilt... Really impressive. A realistic story. Not the same over the top we all know are impossible scenes, and some true realistic action. James Bond is not some kind of a super hero in this movie like he was always portrayed. This movie made me see James Bond for the first time as a human being. Just like all of us, he can be bruised, beaten, deceived, and even saved from death. This movie was a very pleasant surprise for me. The director from Goldeneye made his best Bond movie (and I really liked Goldeneye) and Daniel Craig is the most believable Bond I have ever seen. A must see for anyone. One of the year's five best,
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig brings Bond into the 21st Century
harpster_200419 November 2006
I went to see this movie the day after its general release. Having read all the controversial news about the choice of actor for the role of James Bond, I was a skeptic at first. But I am glad that I have been proved wrong... because this film really is the best James Bond movie I have seen!!

This film brings a little more edge to the suave super spy, and in all of the right places. All of the acting is superb, and Daniel Craig gives Bond back something that has been missing from the previous films - Character! The main villain is portrayed brilliantly by danish actor Mads Mikkelsen and I thought that Eva Green did a really good job as Bond's first love, Vesper Lynd.

This Bond is a little more rough around the edges compared to the other movies, which I think is a refreshing take. Gone are the familiar sites of gadgets, Moneypenny and Q, but it is safe to say that the story does not require them.

Overall, this is a more realistic interpretation of the very first Ian Fleming novel. This is a film which cannot be ignored and I am happy that Daniel Craig has finally silenced his critics. He has brought Bond into the 21st century, with a style and wit not seen since Sean Connery!

Definitely worth a look
5/10
James Bourne is Better, but Not Good Enough
gunstar_hero9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A lot has been made of Casino Royale's new direction. Out with the nonsense, back to basics, enter James Bourne. Q is agreeably absent, and the nearest thing to Moneypenny is a control-room full of 20-something CSI wannabes. In cleaning up his act, however, Bond appears to have misplaced his licence to thrill.

That Casino Royale constitutes a 'back to basics' reincarnation (a 'reboot' of the Bond timeline, in comic-book argot) speaks volumes about how far the series had lost its way – sort of like a drunk waking up after a twenty-year bender and learning to put one foot in front of the other again. Like bourbon or vodka, pyrotechnics and body counts are kept firmly out of the repentant screenplay's reach. Nothing happens in Casino Royale that could not conceivably happen in real life, which for a Bond movie is an astonishing and dubious accolade. Simply put, action movie 'basics' – explosions, tension, effective pacing and straightforward characterisation – are not in place. The latter is a moot point, for Bond's fling with Vesper Lynd is meant to be the romantic affair to end them all, her death the wound that never heals. Yet all the script can offer is the kind of clunky, unremarkable dialogue that Bond fans will recognise from the slow bits in Goldeneye. The power of Bourne's relationship with Franka Potente is never matched; there are, in fact, far more memorable romantic interludes in earlier Bond: Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Louis Armstrong sequence, for instance.

Casino Royale is both boring and complacent enough to assume its audience will forgive its boringness through their fondness for all things Bond. Undoubtedly better than Die Another Day – but that's hardly grounds for comparison.
9/10
wow casino royal!!!!!!
sportykat25 November 2006
Amazing. The new Bond is amazing everyone thought he would be bad but he isn't hes better than the last one in DAD. The plot has the typical Bond themes; suspense, love, jokes, sadness, more jokes and more action and many twists which are scarily unpredictable! I love it oh so much. I has the same amazing action scenes but a million times better with a more realistic outlook. As well as the old Bond sense of humour Craig brings lines which are new and exceptionally funny. The film tells us how Bond achieved his 00 status and how only he could almost loose it but still continue. Of course the film is not all action and humour and inevitable love scenes but this time there is sadness which Craig brings out well. I wouldn't recommend for children below 10 due to some scenes and lines in the story. There's no swearing but there is peril as always along with improved special effects
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Umm...folks?
casca723 December 2007
This IS what James Bond is. NONE of you have obviously read the books. This movie was trying its best, successfully too, to portray a James Bond as Fleming wrote him. You are comparing this movie to the other movies which is a big mistake. This is how Fleming portrayed Bond. Not as Connery, Dalton, Moore portrayed him. Open your minds, stop thinking this film's makers were trying to stay true to the previous films. They were trying to stay true to how James Bond was written. Consider how Bond is portrayed as you would compare the new Batman Returns or the newer one coming out soon to the TV series or previous Batman movies. It's how the creator of Batman wrote him. NOT the campy 70's series. NOT the Clooney, Kilmer, Keaton Batman either.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig is Fleming's 007
Ladypunch18 November 2006
I just came from the theater and loved the movie! I loved the books as a teen and my favorite actor for the movies is Sean Connery. When I saw the pictures of Daniel Craig, I was skeptical. All skepticism was removed. Daniel Craig is more like the Bond Ian Fleming created than in any movie before. Going back to the beginning is brilliant to show the humanity of Bond that has been missing in the movies before. As expected, the women are beautiful, the bad guys are very bad, and the action is right for the 'beginning'. I expect we'll see much more action in the coming movies, and I am ready for the new one. If you've read any of the Bond books, you'll love this one.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This Bond has it...
PhillipSimons26 November 2006
Last week I went to the cinema rather skeptic but also very excited to see the new Bond movie. And I must say, the movie surpassed my expectations.

It's a real comeback of James Bond, and may I say in style. Daniel Craig has been constantly disputed as a adequate Bond-actor, and in the first few times he looks a bit unconfined. But in a very curious way, Craig transforms and adapts - charming when needed, but mostly serious and dark, like the Bond interpreted by Timothy Dalton, but better, even deeper and more variable, somewhere near the middle of the picture we become familiar even with his very Bond-unlike look(he could have easily been chose for a Bond villain role, makes the perfect Russian spy/general look). But not only Craig should be praised, but the entire cast, especially the very confident, sophisticated and comfortable Mads Mikkelsen who makes a terrific Bond villain. Moreover, finally we get a brake from all the high-tech insane terrorists and their scams to destroy the world in a bizarre way, and can concentrate on some very amusing card - game duels and money chases.

But the strongest thing about this movie is the balance between action and the plot development, something that lacked in every of the past Brosnan movies. Very smooth and easy going, you can enjoy the plot development all the 144 minutes of the movie. And finally a Bond movie manages to evade that unnecessary megalomaniac behavior, and stays away from paroles like "The World is Not Enough".

David Arnold pointed one more time out that he is the right man to make the score, although we all miss some John Barry tunes.

We get some rest from "Q" and his tricky gadgets, no Moneypenny dialog, but despite of it all, this movie should be considered as one of the best Bond pictures ever.
10/10
Film 10 / Original Song "You Know My Name" 8 / Chris Cornell 6
chrisNseattle5 December 2006
The film should receive numerous nominations from the Academy Awards (US) but will it? Action films or that genre type rarely get taken seriously however this film is A+ quality work on many levels. Top rate acting, writing, photography, directing, etc. This film has the works. Quite possibly the Best Film I have seen this year (and I have seen some good ones).

But I also happen to be a music fan fanatic and just what were these people thinking? To be quite blunt about it this film deserved so much better. It deserved another 'Goldfinger' IMO but it didn't get it. I don't doubt the song will probably be nominated for Original Song (US) come awards time (the song itself ain't bad), but Chris Cornell's delivery does not do justice to the film. Its not bad, its actually good but this film deserved great not just good.

And THAT is this films only flaw IMHO and the only thing that disappointed.

I also am a big film buff and A BIG thanks for giving Daniel Craig this role. I have always liked his work and glad to see him reach this kind of success. Well deserved :-) And for those who haven't seen the film DO NOT MISS the opening credits or arrive even a minute late. If you do, wait until you can see the entire film, the opening credits are worth it :-)
10/10
Casino Rayale
Preciosa-23419 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I decided to watch Casino Royale at Showcase Cinema. My expectations for this movie were very high as it is the latest James Bond film and has been advertised almost everywhere, being on television, the internet, radio, billboards etc. Film critics and the press had been saying earlier on in the year that Daniel Craig (James Bond) was not the typical looking Bond and due to this it will be a flop, because of these statements it reinforced me to see the movie and to see if he was going to prove them wrong. The film was action packed and had a romantic storyline hidden within the adventure and breathtaking plot, Casino Royale met every expectation I was looking for and lived up to its mainstream definition. With its special effects, explosions, modern narrative form and the history to its name I find that this was a very good piece of mainstream film in our day. P.S Daniel Craig is an AMAZINGGGG ACTOR!
10/10
Bond is BIGGER and DARKER
nazkhan3019 November 2006
Well what can I say, I have heard so many people who hated to see Daniel Craig as Bond and to be truthful so was I..

That was until I saw the movie and OH MY GOOD GOD comes to mind. Daniel is not only a fantastic actor but he played the hardest and darkest bond to date. The opening sequence in Africa was superb and expertly executed. Then the rest of the movie just got better and better..

Daniel's on screen presence was majestic.. The baddies also played a part for making this one of the best bond films to come out in years..

Le chiffre was superb and the off course the customary bond girls were gorgeous as usual..
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Shocking! Positively Shocking!
victorbond20079 December 2006
Four years ago I walked out the theater thinking that Die Another Day did not feel like the Bond movies I had come to love and praise, it was a "weird movie": Bond surfing a giant wave, running away from a giant ray from a deadly satellite, driving an invisible car, and turning on a helicopter moments before crashing was just too much. I liked the film (it had some spectacular sequences) but somehow it just didn't feel right. I just felt it... though I don't know how to explain it. Then one year ago, Daniel Craig was announced as James Bond. To be honest I was not very happy about the casting (Pierce Brosnan was my favorite Bond, perhaps because he was the first one I saw); however I never bashed him or anything, I wanted to wait till the movie hit theaters. The two trailers came out and I started to get really excited. Let me confess that I was a bit nervous about this "reboot". Bond being a rookie, no Q nor Moneypenny, less action, no Bond theme, etc. Yesterday I went to the premiere of the film. In Sean Connery's words: "Shocking. Positively Shocking!". Casino Royale was the best Bond film ever. It had all the elements that I love from the Bond films, but lets go step by step. The cast is superb. DANIEL CRAIG IS JAMES BOND. He handles the character better than Connery and Brosnan. Despite being closer to the character Fleming envisioned, he manages to remain charming and likable. His "one liners" are nothing compared to Moore's or Brosnans ("That's a name to die for...." - shudders); this guy is actually funny (one thing that surprised me), but not in a campy way. The lines that he delivers when he first meets Vesper ("You are not my type of woman"- Bond. "Smart?" - Vesper "No, married") and those during the torture scenes are perfect. Hope he will stay for a long time. Best Bond ever!

Eva Green, who in the trailers seemed to be a wrong choice, proved to be perfect. Her character might not me as tough as Wai Lin, but she is really smart and resourceful (not like Stacy from A View to a Kill- the worst Bond girl). Vesper is not a Bond girl, she is a Bond lady, mysterious until the end. Great choice. Though her character dies in the end, I sure hope the rumor of a future appearance in a recorded message in Bond 22 is fulfilled. Mads Mikkilsen is another great casting choice.Le Chiffre is wonderfully portrayed. He is sadistic yet likable (I almost felt sorry for him at the end). The torture sequence is beautifully executed by both him and Craig. His line about God is perfect and the confrontation in the poker tables is even greater. Judy Dench is even better than in Brosnan era. Jesper Christensen is quite good as mysterious Mr. White. My only complain is Jeffrey Wright; I would have loved to see more of Felix and Bond's friendship (will have to wait for the next one). The action, unlike what I thought before seeing the film, is the best we've seen in the Bond series. The Madagascar chase is out of this world (yet believable). Sebastian Fourcan takes a lot of credit. The Miami International sequence is breathtaking; unlike previous films I started to believe that Bond was not going to be able to stop the tanker from blowing up the plane. The ending for this sequence is really funny, but is also shows how Bond feels about killing someone. The stairwell fight is pretty intense (one of the greatest hand combat sequences in film history). But the torture scene totally rocked. The finale in Venice is quite fast, but still really enjoyable. No car chase for this one - I hope the producers will gradually add them to the future films. As for Q and Moneypenny, there is no problem. In fact they shouldn't be reintroduced, it was perfect this way. EON should introduce Loelia instead. The music is really good, I didn't even notice the absence of the Bond theme (up until the last sequence). Though it doesn't appear fully until the end, we do hear hints of the theme as the movie progresses (and as Bond starts to evolve). The song is not that good though, it is just not special.

The humor is perfect! My only complaint is the gun barrel intro. I think it is a great idea to have Daniel Craig shoot the sniper just before the titles roll (it makes it more realistic); however the effect of the blood (too much CGI and badly done) and the new gunbarrel were really bad. Bring back the old effect, the way it looked with Pierce Bronan was fine! Now I am really looking forward to Bond 22 (as never before). I just hope that they will keep the style they used for Casino Royale, no gadgets, no over-the-top villains and no stupid Bond girls (Jinx). Congratulations to Barbara Brocolli, Michael Wilson (who by the way has a great cameo), Martin Campbell and especially to Daniel Craig.

I give these film 10 out of 10. You should go see Casino Royale. You will not regret it!
9/10
Yet another paradigm shift, and a great one at that
dagdfg-318 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Part of the success of Bond films is not getting bogged down in dogma and being able to shift styles to freshen the franchise. This is a very successful reboot of the series. Action, plot, characters, acting, and style this one scores well on just about everything.

Daniel Craig pulls off the part well and makes the role his own. This is the grittiest interpretation of Bond yet, and while I've enjoyed the cartoonish interpretations such as Roger Moore's before, Casino Royale is much more visceral compared to previous efforts. There is humour in this one but for the most part it is subdued and subtle.

I've not seen it mentioned yet but I think kudos should go to Judy Dench as well. In previous outings, much like Pierce Brosnan's Bond, her performance seemed like it was being held back, as though the producers were afraid any time devoted to characterization would lose the audience. No more, this M is tough, tactical, and manipulative. This is easily the most fully realized version of M in any Bond movie. Makes me wonder what they could do with Q and Moneypenny should they reintroduce the characters in future movies.

A few minor quibbles, the theme song is forgettable, the opening credits seem completely out of character with the tone of the movie. It's not so much that the movie is too long as it takes awhile to reveal why the final section seems so drawn out. Be patient, it makes sense in the end.
7/10
My name is Bond. James Bond.
focusakker30 September 2007
Hello, everyone. My name is Whifflebottom. Xandir P. Whifflebottom. Let me tell you about Casino Royale, one of the best James Bond films to date.

Bond (Daniel Craig) is the world's most dapper spy, on a mission to save the world from bad guys. He has a sexy partner, played not by Rachel McAdams or Charlize Theron, but by a stupid sissy named Eva Green.

So, has anyone found Rachel McAdams? BONG! BONG! BONG! BART! LISA! TIME FOR CHURCH! I'll take that as a yes.

Anyway, in the words of Midnight Rider, let's try to remember Rachel McAdams not as a Bond girl, but as that sexy woman who became a bride and was involved in a plane hijacking.

And has a boyfriend.

And has a boyfriend. Yes, we'll never forget that, will we? Open your heart-I got a load of big shoes to fill. Big shoes to fill. Big shoes to fill.

Anyway, Charlize Theron is exciting not as a Bond girl, but as an assassin named Aeon Flux. She descended as high distances.

JFK, blown away! Who is to teach us to fly! Fly, of course! Fly! Ninepence! I'm not dead!

Legally Blonde. Sally Ride. Rachel McAdams is a bride. Davy Crockett, Peter Pan, Elvis Presley, Disneyland!

Rachel McAdams is not with James Bond. She is a serendipitous blonde. She plays a bride in a movie, you see. Keep your 40, I'll just have an Earl Grey tea!

I gotta go, everyone. Sayonara.
10/10
Casino Royale
leonharted19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For those of you who were discouraged by 007's new face. Don't be! Daniel Craig does an amazing job as Bond, contrary to popular belief. But don't expect your traditional Bond flick, with girls, guns, gadgets, and girls. Casino Royale takes a different turn with a central plot of James' impossible emotion. Love. Don't worry though it isn't over done and when you take into the fact that he's a young James Bond (due to his indecisiveness and mistakes) it makes a great deal of sense. I would say this is a must see film for Bond fans, just to give you the insight of the beginning of "007". But even if the film was about Jack Banner it would still be a great movie. ***Keep an eye out for hits at how he develops his love for the Aston Martin and Vodka Martinis "shaken not stirred"

Darryll Carter
10/10
Rougher is better.......
gillesopcursus20 November 2006
Bigger is better ? This new Bond-movie present a James Bond fresh out of school without any inhibitions. In this movie James is confronted with a few obstacles but primarily himself. OK there is the bad guy and there are some girls but mostly it is James fighting is primal instinct.

The bad guy in this movie is an Accountant called Le Chifrre. Great with numbers (lousy accountant if you weren't) and plays poker just to show off. After losing some money in a bad investment, he is forced to stage a poker tournament in the Casino Royale in Montenegro. James, of course, enters this tournament, being the bad investment.

When I first watched this movie, I was awed by the physical part that Daniel Craig had to go to. Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan were also the more physical James Bonds, but Daniel Craig takes James Bonds stamina to a higher level. The fighting scenes are furious and brutal, chases are fast-paced and aggressive. This makes this Bond less subtle but more interesting, much more interesting.

Visually this bond takes more after Mission Impossible 3 whilst keeping the Bond 'panache'. Because of the numerous plot twists, they keep you on the edge of your seat. A great movie and a fabulous bond.

Bond is back....
10/10
Easily Makes the Top Five Bond Movies...
BigCat00720 November 2006
When you think about all the things that make a movie great, Bond movie aside, you think of acting, plot, character development, cinematography, etc. when you throw in the Bond criteria, you add things that go along with spy movies. HOWEVER, you never take out what makes a good movie.

In Casino Royale, Martin Campbell reminds us of this very thing. The cinematography is a welcoming, and refreshing feel to this Bond movie. No longer are there just simple screen shots of Bond doing unbelievable things, but you have new ideas, new camera tricks, and the like. There is a cinematic aspect to this movie, that adds to it, making it better and more enjoyable.

The plot line is not unbelievable. Bond movies of late are filled with unbelievable plots and unrealistic endeavors. Casino Royale brings for a more believable plot line, and one that we can follow. It also provides for a decent amount of character development and for conflict between characters that is not ridiculous or outdated.

The acting in Casino Royale is top notch. Craig is truly a great actor, and he takes on James Bond as if he were the real thing. It is refreshing to see a man who can take Bond and make him more realistic and allow for the audience to identify that he truly is Bond, not some frothy guy in a tux throwing out cheesy clichés. The supporting cast is also something to boast about. I don't think anyone will fight me when I say Denise Richards is a Bond girl we wish we could forget--her acting is atrocious.

When all is said and done, Casino Royale is a complete movie. It offers something new to Bond, and a realistic, believable feel. If you are a fan of the real, Ian Fleming Bond, you will enjoy this movie. In my opinion, not man other Bonds come close.
9/10
They've got it Riight!!!!!!
iragaines17 November 2006
WOW, WOW, WOW.Four years of waiting were over for me at 11.10 this morning as i got my ticket for Bond.And i wasn't disappointed the producers have finally gave in and accepted a new formula for the worlds best spy!

The action is top notch putting the bond franchise back on top of the action genre(out actioning mi:3)in my opinion.What an introduction for the new realistic bond an hour of great fights and chases and then we're onto the book not since from Russia with love have we seen a bond film follow the book so closely.And updating it perfectly! I'll not say more just see it!! you'll not regret it.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond is back...but with a difference.
beardyman20 November 2006
Like many Bond fans I asked myself the question would Daniel Craig fall in to the category of Lazenby and to a lesser extent Dalton's Bonds and fail in many opinions to make the grade? (To Messer's Lazenby and Dalton, I am not among those who throw criticism at your efforts) In a word no...And here's why, Daniel Craig plays James Bond, he does not play Sean Connery Playing James bond or any other fine actor who has carried the mantle before. This is my epiphany, there is no best Bond that opinion should remain reserved for Bond's Creator Ian Fleming and sadly that will elude us all.

Casino Royale is an exceptionally entertaining film, from the opening scenes which will leave some viewers in need of a calming cup of green tea and others craving for more, this film is everything a Bond movie should be, it's decadent, exaggerated and even in some cases vulgar but always Bond! I close with this fellow movie goers, don't concern yourself with how well Daniel Craig will portray Bond because the Myriad of actors who have worn the Hallowed dinner jacket before are so varied that I could not tell you who Bond is, watch this movie to enjoy Daniel Craig's performance in another role which he fulfils with seeming ease. My only criticism is that the film may be a little over long, but if asked, would I add my name to the waiting list for tickets to the next movie? The answer is a resounding yes!
10/10
Bond at his Best
Rebeccamartin25 November 2006
From start to finish this is an excellent movie. I'm a big Bond fan and this is just the best. Daniel Craig is brilliant as the new James Bond. Well acted he looked totally confident and fitted the role perfectly. Deserves 11 out of 10. Definitely a movie to see again and again. I was gripped, intrigued totally taken in by it. Story line totally believable and well acted. Perhaps the 12A rating is a bit lenient. I think probably a 15 would be more appropriate. Some scenes although integral to the film were quite harrowing. I will certainly be getting this on DVD as soon as it's out. All in all a well deserved 10 out of 10 for the film and Daniel Craig.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Daniel is no monkey
john-43236 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First and foremost this is a really good film, only one thing prevented it from being a GREAT film, still watch it at the cinema! The pre-opening sequences reminded me of Agent 47 from the game Hit-man, cool stylish, well designed, thought about and stunning. Next the opening sequences, gone are the dancing girls behind crappy lights; even as an avid bond fan I was glad to see them make a complete refreshing change. The action is jaw dropping and on from the get go, Daniel's acting and stylish personal touches make Pierce Brosnan look like a monkey that could talk. Gone are the cheesy one liners and 19 year old girls for an ageing lesario, For your eyes only... ugh! Gone are the chest wigs and the unbearable idea of women finding Bond irresistible, as well as the carry-on style names like "IVona Humpalot". Gone are the old rubbish jokes there are new ones which are actually funny! Gone are the stupid women (Denise Richards) and really crappy gadgets (invisible Aston). Daniel comes out of the sea like Ursula Andress and all the women in the cinema were as wet as October. People get shot, stabbed and bond gets hurt, when did Roger Moore ever put a hair out of place when fighting the giant Jaws? This film relied on brilliant acting and great plot lines. Forget the negative reviews from people who said they couldn't follow it; a trained monkey could follow it. The downsides include little things missing, like no air bags in the smashed £250,000 Aston Martin, no acting ability in Eva Green and no one shouting stop when Bond says "I love you"... STOP!!! Yes people Bond falls in love. Now up until the start of this sequence you had me in awe and I was giving this film 10, then some dumb schmuck thought it would be great to not only introduce some love scenes but a marriage proposal as well.... UH? This is James Bond for god sake, take two lovelies into the shower? No I just shag and go! This monstrosity not only destroyed the illusion you get from being engrossed in a fantastic film but board me sh*tless because like Monty Python I wanted to say "GET ON WITH IT!" after what seemed an eternity. It was like watching Pride and Prejudice and half expected Jeremy Beadle to enter the cinema telling me it was a joke! When that rubbish was out the way the film tried to get us back into the mood but the moment had gone. Some good stunts and rubbish CGI of a falling building and as an evil person would you really have two, yes 2!, henchmen with dodgy eyes because low and behold we met the 2nd one... what are the chances of that happening? The one bit that ruined this film - the last twenty minutes, such a let down. Good but so close to being great.
8/10
Bond Begins
elliot200523 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First things first, Craig makes a fantastic Bond – easily the best since Sean Connery; perhaps even better (but we'll have to wait for Bond 22 for that). He brings an intense quality to the character; anger, passion and determination all burning in his Paul Newman-blue eyes. Craig plays Bond with humanity and vulnerability – but that doesn't mean he's a wimp. Due to a testing gym routine Craig certainly looks like he can do the stunts, and does most of them in the fantastic action sequences.

The classic Bond elements are present; even if Casino Royale is the Batman Begins of the series (rumour has it the next film features a villain with green hair). Luxurious locations include Madagascar, the Bahamas, Montenegro and Venice; the quintessential Bond-vehicle of the Aston Martin appears in two different models; the girls; and the Vodka Martini (although he's not quite ready to value the subtle difference between shaken and stirred) all appear. However, in keeping with the more serious darker – perhaps even noir – tone, Q and Moneypenny have been stripped away. It certainly works with the film, but its possible Bond-fans may be yearning for their return – perhaps with less sci-fi elements (invisible cars anyone?) and less tired innuendos (let's not even go there).

Does the shift in direction work? Yes and a resounding one at that. The series was in dire need of a rethink in a post The Bourne Identity/Supremacy and 24 world, and the influence is clearly present. The punches sound beefy; Bond bruises and bleeds frequently; the killing is brutal – his first takes place in a grimy toilet and is shot in monochrome, stripping any ounce of style away.

Campbell does an even better job with the pre-credits sequence than Goldeneye. His fantastic direction provide a tense opening, the black and white tying together perfectly with claustrophobic camera angles to provide a heavily noir-influenced sequence – completed with Bond hiding in shadow, leaning forward to show his face only as he seals his 00 status with a swift, silent bullet. Campbell's sense for action remains in excellent form as well. He turns a potentially gimmicky parkour sequence across a building site into a heart-stopping chase across cranes, rooftops and eventually through a troop-filled embassy. In all of the action set pieces whip-pans, tracking shots and quick editing infuse an urgent pace, and transport the audience into the visceral thrill of the action. Campbell's greatest achievement though is the central game of Texas Hold 'Em. It conveys the tension incredibly well – and it does well to stay entirely understandable to non-card-players.

Eva Green does a great job as Vesper, making her strong and fiercely intelligent. Her relationship with Bond has genuine romance, and she makes sure she is not just a conquest – Bond states his love of her quite openly. Judi Dench reprises her role as M in style as always, and Mads Mikkelsen does a sturdy – if not outstanding – job as Bond's antagonist. They pale in comparison to Craig's Bond, his presence on the screen incredibly dominating. Indeed, during the torture scene (straying the film dangerously close to 15 territory) Bond comes out most powerfully: despite being naked and having his testicles beaten with a length of knotted rope, repeatedly.

Casino Royale reboots Bond into excellent form, any anachronistic elements are unimportant. Craig defiantly answers his critics with an exceptional performance that should silence any cries of 'too Blond for Bond!'. Bond 22 is due in May 2008 and, if this form continues, the credits announcing 'James Bond will return.' will be very welcome indeed.
10/10
Daniel Craig is the John McClaine of Bond!!
CroatianSensation197515 February 2007
To tell everyone here the truth, I was never really a fan of the James Bond franchise. To me, they were basically just science fiction films set in modern times. An unbelievable secret agent, who has more lives than Fritz the Cat, and even more invincible than Rambo. But with Casino Royale, and the addition of Daniel Craig, I am very happy to jump on the Bond bandwagon. This film absolutely blew my mind!

In Casino Royale, we follow the story of James Bond, who has just received his double-0 promotion. For his first mission, Bond is sent to Casino Royale in Montenegro, to win a high stakes poker tournament. If he doesn't win, the money will help fund various terrorist organizations around the world.

As with Batman Begins, the series received a much needed retelling for the modern age. Gone are 99% of the unbelievable gadgets that Bond has relied on over the last 40 years. Now, in Craig, we have a tough, macho guy, who uses his fists as well as he uses his gun. A guy who isn't afraid to bleed. That's right everyone! Not since John McClane has a lead actor bled so much! It's very refreshing to see James Bond portrayed as a human. Not only is he great in the action department, but Craig has all, if not more, charisma and sex appeal than all of his predecessors. They have definitely made the right choice in the Bond for a new generation.

The story is great, and the action is non-stop, and most importantly....believable! Gone are all the crazy outrageous stunts from the previous Bond flicks. An added plus in my books! Plus, we do get to see a gorgeous collection of Bond girls, most notably Eva Green.

If you are a Bond fan, you will definitely not be disappointed. Those of you, who were like me and were never real "fans" of the series, definitely must check it out! I am definitely sure you will not be disappointed! The action film of the year. 10/10
10/10
Back to basics
mpoconnor724 June 2007
Casino Royale may have been the best Bond film since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It was clear after Die Another Day that the franchise (while still raking in lots of dough) needed an overhaul, and they pretty much scrapped the concept of a Bond movie as it had become and started over. They took away all the futuristic gadgets, the corny puns he would use after he killed somebody, the fancy sports car with the ejector seat, and the megalomaniacal uber-villains trying to take over the world. The only weapons Bond has are his fists and his gun; he is also very handy with a computer. In short, they went back to Ian Fleming's books and made this quite possibly the most realistic Bond film ever. Daniel Craig is easily the best Bond since Sean Connery, and he will grow into the Bond film well. This movie has the best chase sequence of any Bond film, and it's not in fancy sports cars but on foot. Casino Royale has single-handedly resurrected the James Bond franchise, and for the first time in several decades I am eagerly awaiting the next Bond movie.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The New Bond
pllc1514 March 2007
I've seen every Bond film since Dr. No, but noted that Casino Royale II to be entirely out of character than the standard runs of yore...no gimmickry gadgets, no Moneypenny, no lead-in hair-raising episodes, and etc. From this movie, our fans finally get to have an inside peek into what makes James Bond tick for the first time. Dan Craig's portrayal of Bond was certainly different in contrast to the Bonds I knew. Craig was less debonair and more boorish of being roguishly dangerous...someone you might want to avoid in a dark alley for sure or meet for that matter. It is a refreshing and novel approach. The unusual and different ending left me dumbfounded with the thought that Casino Royale was really a prologue, telling us that a new genre of Bond films are on the horizon, so don't be surprised! Obviously the producers and the director must have given careful thought and consideration to this departure with the idea that the time has come to create and show the world that their new interpretation about James Bond is appropriate and long over due.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond Ever!
terryhkang18 November 2006
The opening credits and song are super cheesy, but if you can sit through that, you're in for the most exciting Bond film ever. Daniel Craig, with his craggy boxer's face and alien Spock-like ears, is still immensely appealing. He's also super buff and brawny, with a physique that makes the other Bonds look effete. This Bond could crush any of his predecessors - as he does the villains of this film - with his bare hands and without the need for fancy, high-tech weapons. The action sequence that jump-starts the film in beautifully filmed and choreographed, more awe-inspiring than the best scene of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It is a LONG scene, but you will be riveted to every second of it. The physical feats of the actors are incredible - and it all looks real, not overly edited or digitally enhanced. Craig, all rough edges and sweat in the first few scenes, cleans up very nicely when he dons his trademark tux. The dialogue, on the whole, is fresher than in previous Bonds, though there is one mawkish scene towards the end that will make you respect the two actors more for being able to utter the soap-opera lines with credibility. Craig is a terrific actor. With the inevitable success of this film, his Bond will be here to stay.
10/10
Sean who?
kmscb-125 December 2006
Unlike many of the previous posters here, I've never been a huge Bond fan. The early Connery ones were okay as period pieces, but Roger Moore was too lightweight to play the role convincingly and Pierce Brosnan just plain too skinny. I did like Timothy Dalton because he seemed intelligent enough to pull things off, but overall I've only tolerated them for their opening stunts, chases and ridiculous gadgets. Despite having friends who are deep into Bond-age (something the movie-makers play with in this one), I've only seen half the movies, and for half of those I had to talk myself into watching them. That's why I didn't see "Casino Royale" till Christmas Day; I kept thinking I SHOULD go because everyone was saying it's great, but I just couldn't get myself up for it. I was finally talked into it by a buddy who's a Bondaholic and who wanted the excuse to see it for the third time. So I figured -- What they hey; I got nothing else going on.

Well...I was wrong to wait. This was one fan-friggin'-tastic movie! Not just a "James Bond" film, but a great action thriller that not only reinvents the whole notion of Bond as a blond but makes him seem realistic and human enough to empathize with. In a Bond film, you expect the action sequences to be brilliant -- and the chase in Uganda fit the bill, perfectly -- but they should also be SUSPENSEFUL, something the other movies had lost sight of. You have to really feel that Bond might just not make it...and there were a couple of moments where I wasn't sure he'd get to where he needed to be in time. It was magnificent.

The fact is, there's non-stop suspense in this film. And romance. And beauty. And CHARACTER! Bond's no longer just a machine with a Walther PPK, he's a man who hurts and bleeds and can easily die and knows it. And tries not to care...but can't quite achieve that last bit of remove from reality. And Daniel Craig -- with his ice-blue eyes and working- class-English looks and carefully pumped-up body -- fills the role to such a wonderful extent, you're left wondering who could have better filled the shoes of Ian Flemming's spy. I mean seriously, as we were leaving the theater, my buddy said he was almost as good as Sean Connery, and my first thought was, "Sean who?"

I cannot emphasize enough -- this is not just a Bond movie; this is a great story told by people at the top of their form that, for the first time, gives me an idea of what the allure of the whole 007 mythology is all about and helps me accept it. And want to see it, again. And that, alone, is worth making this a TEN.
10/10
The Names Bond, James Bond (and I'm back)
moonbootica18 November 2006
A nice jolt to the Bond franchise, gritty, action packed and refreshingly gadget free. It has successfully manage to reinvent itself for the 21st century, after the 2 Bourne movies and 24, James Bond was starting to look more sillier than usual and quite tired, James Bond really lost his edge and seemed a pale reflection of Jason Bourne and Jack Bauer. It was helped by amazing action sequences and death defying stunts and even the Bond Girls were more rounded.

You were made to care for Bond, he was given human emotions and really suffered, he became flesh and blood rather than a cardboard cutout. Daniel Craig made for a tougher and meaner Bond not to mention also being very fit, nice body too.

So go see this movie and reappraise what you think Bond is and you will come out with a different perspective.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Craig too good for the genre?
justin-45826 November 2006
First and foremost there's been so much talk of whether Daniel Craig can play Bond. That's never been a problem in my eyes - he's an absolute cracking actor. Now on to the film.

The first third of the film is great - we see Craig launch himself with vigour into the role of Bond. I never liked Brosnan as a Bond, way too slimy - so it was refreshing to see a tougher guy play the part. The action is great, the stunts fantastic - it's all good.

However the film then falters badly. The romance with the new Bond girl is flat and unconvincing - in parts the dialogue is terribly cheesy and Craig seems ill at ease trying to pull it off.

At first I was pleased that Craig was the new Bond but after seeing this I realise something - he's too good an actor for the cheesy Bond franchise!!! Terrible!

The second half of the film drags. The Casino scenes are way too long and the editing then crumbles into a mish mash of nonsense. The third part of the film then becomes even weaker....

A disappointment
10/10
Amazing
topherwriter18 November 2006
This is definitely the coolest action movie Hollywood has made in years. Casino Royale has it all: awesome action scenes, a well-developed human character, and a great plot.

The action scenes were incredible and were capable of keeping anyone awake and at the edge of his or her seat. The best scene was in the very beginning where James Bond is chasing a man through a construction yard. The man is very athletic and does some amazing stunts, and James Bond, who isn't near as athletic, does some cool stunts but not near as amazing as the man he chases.

Which brings me to the next point, the well developed character. James Bond is usually an emotionally detached man who is incapable of any human characteristics at all. He starts out as an egotistical loser who only cares about himself but his character goes through many changes throughout the movie. I can't reveal how these changes come or what they are because I would spoil this incredible movie to readers.

Along with the character, the plot line was very believable, and it was summarizable in one sentence: James Bond has to enter a high-stakes poker tournament to keep a lot of money from being one by a major terrorist organization. This mission that Bond has to do is very believable because it is dealing with a subject that is very real: terrorism.

The one word descriptions of this movie: awesome, amazing, excellent, brilliant.
9/10
Is Daniel Craing the best bond?
lozease7616 November 2006
Is Daniel Craig the best bond? He has to be in the running. Only mighty Connery stands in his way. After this showing, Craig is looking to take the great goliath's crown. After what immediately was considered a bad choice (Craig being short, blond, and, how shall we say it "not quite an oil painting"), is now looking an inspired decision. Although after just one film he is not there yet. But however, if the scripts continues to be so good (a character driven bond!)- And Craig continues to be so mesmerizing; over say three films I think the crown is his. I might just see what odds the bookies are offering!

Not only is Craig good, the film is great. Martin Campbell's work on this film surely has to be his best. Not only, truly amazing action sequences (the chase scene in the beginning has to be one of bond's best, absolutely thrilling!) but also he directs some very tender scenes between a screen goddess in Eva Green and the Psychotic cold hearted Bond. Craig and Campbell succeed in make us care for such a man, although a lot of this is down to Craig's personal charm and excellent acting. This makes it one of my favourite bond films, a bold statement. But I really cant remember the last Bond film as good as this.

If you like Bond you will love this, go watch it
8/10
Dragging... but worth the watch
tandtk219 November 2006
There is a lot to say about the new Bond movie. This is more personal than you'd think due to the fact I am NOT a Bond fan but my brother is so he demanded I take him to the midnight show to see this film. I was thoroughly expecting a huge let down considering Daniel Craig is blonde, and I could only see him as the no-name character of Layer Cake, very far from any James Bond. Then I read an article in my FHM interviewing one of Bond's lady interests in this movie and became more annoyed that I agreed to take my brother to see this film. The joke was on me because I actually did enjoy the film.

Daniel Craig is very much different from Peirce Brosnan (who I HATED as Bond) and does especially well in the hand-to-hand combat scenes. His Bond is just a beginner so he is not as smooth and doesn't have the gadgets that always bugged me of Bond, making me think more of MacGyver. Every Bond fan of Connery's has been impressed with the sarcastic wit and the great action sequences that Craig performs.

Now I don't want to spoil the film for anyone who hasn't read the book or seen the original, but there are parts of the movie where it does seem to drag on. There are many points where the story goes into so much love story that it feels hokey. To try to make up for these drags, it seems they added points of unnecessary jokes that still are enough to make most laugh. It's obvious these lady characters were far from needed.

Judi Dench was great as M. That is all I can really say about that. The manner in which she speaks to Bond is fantastic. The opening song to Casino Royale was not the best Bond song yet, but Chris Cornell did not do a horrible job either. It works really well with the cinematics of the opening credits.

I recommend this film for all action fans. There is even a Seagall moment in one scene and Bond fans should not mind the new Bond after the opening twenty minutes. It may be a bit risqué for the little ones however so I'd leave the small ones at home. You don't see much nudity but you will see naked limbs and majority of a male body, as well as Craig in very short swim trunks that don't leave much to the imagination. The violence is also a bit much for the children, but overall, it's very family friendly with very little swearing.
10/10
Seconded only by Dr. No (maybe)
odin_45722 November 2006
Perhaps this is the best Bond film yet, perhaps not, but definitely a front runner. They portrayed Bond as capable, witty, and most importantly, somewhat distant and casually cruel and cold-blooded. Such a dark personality would have to be a prerequisite for the type of work which he volunteers for: killing people who compromise the free world. This film was executed very nicely, and I am earnestly anticipating the next film, which is a continuation of Casino Royale, I believe. Hopefully they will keep the same trend of leaving Q branch out of the films, or at least keeping its part to a minimum. It was nice to see Bond, rather than his gadgets, kicking asses. They also pulled off the villain nicely. Le Chiffre came off as a classic Bond villain, very cold and methodical, without the absurdly complicated revenge theme used.

Bond is back people!
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Not what I expected, I guess I was expecting the same old Bond
kashif-aziz16 November 2006
As I purchased my ticket I watched the reaction on the Ticket Agent. I spotted a small but distinct smile across his face as soon as I asked for Casino. I asked him if he has seen it, and he said it was the best Bond movie to date and it was true to the book.

That encounter was the first real positive thing I had heard about the movie. I didn't like the new Bond, he looked very boring and lacked in the charisma department, but that was until I watched it.

Now I understand, this is a very good movie and unlike the previous Bond movies, you don't walk out thinking you watched a typical Bond action packed replay of the last Bond movie. This felt new, fresh and has definitely injected a new lease of life into the Bond brand.

I can't wait until the next adventure. Well worth watching, please go with an open mind and you won't be disappointed.

My name Kash...........Kash Aziz.
8/10
The baton has been safely handed on .
alec-macarthur17 November 2006
Good film! You've got to compare new Bonds with previous ones, it's the in the rules. Daniel Craig is like Connery at his most predatory, and I'd have to say there's more than a bit of Lazenby in there.

The story was set very much in the real world, where villains are money driven thugs or third world war lords, rather than the megalomaniac twisted geniuses with all that associated nonsense.

The violence is more real and ugly in places. The accompanying the cheesy one liners have been dispensed with.

There were more than a couple of nods to Bond tradition but the film didn't feel tied down by the expected content in a way some have.

All in all 8 out of 10 - Bond kicks Bourne's butt Oh and finally: To those advertiser who think I want to see Bond related product adverts, loaded with scenes from a film, the very same film, I'm sitting in a cinema waiting to watch...MAY YOU BURN IN HELL.
10/10
Who would've thought
eva_gaspar11 December 2006
When I was a child I did enjoy James Bond movies: action, glamour, beauty and easy scripts with happy endings. To me was just a matter of growing up to dislike this kind of movie, it didn't bring anything new: always the same sequence and the same exploding action until nothing makes sense anymore. What an incredibly happy surprise was to watch "Casino Royale" with Daniel Craig starring as J.B. Although I do not know his previous work, He is really the movie, every bit of it, and believe me, He makes it worth every cent. J.B. is finally a three dimensions man, has an intriguing personality and bleeds just as any would do under the circumstances. Needless to say, I love the film, it has an extraordinary music ("You know my name" really gets you into it since the very beginning), locations and picture are astonishing, the script is solid, the bad guys are people like anyone else with its complexities and reasons... I had a wonderful time watching it and feeling the same urge that I felt when watching "Fightclub" (who didn't want to get into it and kick some?). If I had the chance, I would love to congratulate Mr. Craig for his work, specially after all what he had to cope up with, thank him for giving me back J.B. and beg him to keep going.
10/10
New Bond, New Martini, A New High
kingelessar229 November 2006
Bond is most definitely back!!! Finally a Bond movie that develops character instead of story. I was getting tired of the same thing over and over again. A new villain that's going to take over the world. More gadgets that don't exist. And more of the same thing over and over again. They were touching into the genre of sci-fi/fantasy more than drama/action. Nothing was real.

This is the only film franchise created that didn't need any originality, which is the whole point to making films.

Martin Campbell wanted to give Bond a new flavor and new twist. There was no point in doing another Bond film if it wouldn't be different. I believe he made excellent choices.

Casino Royale is the first Bond story. His first assignment as 007. And casting a tough, rugged, and very sexy Daniel Craig was the first step.

Daniel Craig is hands down the NEW James Bond!!! Both he and Campbell were the first to tell the world who Bond is as a man. Something that we as the audience have never really been given before. It was wonderful to personally get to know everyone's favorite spy.

He was still learning to the ropes to being an international spy. He was but good, but he was also arrogant, reckless, and had a huge ego. He was rugged and tough, and had this irresistible charm and humor that I couldn't resist. He was learning how to become suave like the Bond we know.

I fell in love with Daniel Craig as Bond very quickly. It was the first scene between James and M. I couldn't help but think his attitude and arrogance attractive.

And I thought Bond genuinely falling in love was good for the story. Eva Green was fantastic as Vesper Lynd and has become my favorite Bond Girl. Vesper and James' continual bashing of each other was great. I loved the scene on the train where they met for the first time. Sizing each other up. Fantastic. And soon after that in the car while going over the last details of their covers. The chemistry between these two is the one of the best as James and Bond Girl.

One of my favorite scenes in the film is when they are getting dressed for the first night of the game. James gives her a dress to wear and she gives him a suit to wear. As he finishes putting this suit on and glances at himself in the mirror, we get our first glimpse of the Bond he will soon become and the Bond we all know. There are little shots like this placed all through the movie, which is great.

I loved the scene where he creates a new martini. And eventually he calls it a Vesper. I'm sure that drink will be served and asked for a bars all over the world soon enough. He has such an adorable sense of humor in this film that he has never had before. It really makes him a bad boy good guy that you can't help to fall in love with.

And the scene after the first part of the poker game, after James kills those two guys and finds Vesper in the shower afterward, still in her dress. It shows the vulnerability of both Vesper and James. It's rare we get to see that from Bond and the Girl.

This story was all about character. Before this film, the James Bond franchise was the same thing over and over again. The only reason it was 20 films long was because people would go and watch the films just because they were Bond. There was nothing original about them. It was getting ridiculous. Casino Royale is the savior of the James Bond franchise.

Something else that was very different was the villain Le Chiffre, played by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen. He was fantastic. I had seen some of his films before, and he has been one of my fav actors for a while. But I have never seen him play a villain before, and was so excited to see him in this one. For once there was no villain trying to take over the world, which was a relief. I enjoyed the fact that Le Chiffre was just a financier for terrorist, which I'm sure there are people like him around today. He was a sophisticated and intelligent, more than our hero, which is great story. James was an underdog, which has not happened very often if at all. He was so intimidating. The scar on his eye. the crying blood. The chip flip thing he does during thegames. And I think he is blind in one eye. You never quite know what he is thinking, which is very intimidating. Everything about him was intimidating. That was his character. He intimidated me as an audience member. It was fantastic acting by Mads'.

This brings me to the poker game. I can understand how difficult it had been to make a poker game very intense and climatic. And it was accomplished very well. The scene where James believes Le Chiffre to be bluffing, and he is really not. We and our characters realize that Le Chiffre is more intelligent than we believed him to be. And this is the point where James becomes to underdog. Also a great moment where James is poisoned and should be dead, but comes back to the game. Very good and entertaining reaction from Le Chiffre. Even though their was no action, these scenes were very intense because of the shot angles and acting, which is quite an accomplishment.

This film was a fresh of breath air for the franchise. For once, it was different and original and very real on every aspect. The story was real, the characters, the villain, the action.
6/10
Bond In The Making
chongchuanmun19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, here it is, guys. The sixth James Bond. Presenting, Daniel Craig! Well, depending on how you see him, he may be a good or a bad Bond. Why? Let's review the movie objectively.

Casino Royale is a story about Bond who just got promoted to Double 0 status, and this is his first assignment. He is a rookie, has no gadgets, no experience, utterly reckless, gets beaten, fooled, lied to, captured, and tortured more times than you will ever watch this movie. With that said, Daniel Craig makes a very good rookie Bond. Clueless most of the time, without charm, and does not express any of the James Bond traits. If you are a hardcore James Bond fan who must hear the words 'Vodka Martini; shaken, not stirred' in a Bond movie, then you will not like this. Still, the movie in itself is not bad.

Directing: with Martin Campbell as the director, there is not a single flaw in the movie. However, even Martin could not give Daniel what he gave to Pierce. Also, I hope he did not have anything to do with the utterly silly opening sequence.

Story: this is perhaps the downfall of the movie. It has no story, per se. The plots are flatter than a flat tire and the theme is simply unidentifiable. I don't know. I just can't appreciate the gist of what they are trying to tell.

Music: I hated the Bond music ever since David Arnold took over in Tomorrow Never Dies, and this movie by far his worst work. You don't even get to hear the Bond theme till the end of the movie! Bring back Eric Serra please.

Q: This is perhaps the first movie that doesn't have Q. Why? Oh right, Bond has no gadgets.

Vodka, women, and Aston Martin: the synopsis of the movie promised us the revelation of these three Bond trademarks, but although I could guess, they were never really explicitly explained.

The villain: Goodness! This guy has got to be the worst Bond villain of all. What happened to the ultimate evil that threatens the entire world? He makes Dr. Evil looks evil. Well, he did say that shedding tears of blood was a medical condition, and has nothing to do with being sinister.

Timeline: I got confused here. Judi Dench was first introduced as M in Goldeneye, and Bond was not happy with her being his superior. He thinks she is an accountant and does not match up to her predecessors. In this movie, Bond was promoted by her. Someone help me out here please.

Rip-off: What's with the Yamakasi rip-off in the opening sequence? Great action directing though.

Bond: whether you like Daniel Craig as Bond or not, that man can sure run!

Sound: well, the music was bad, and the sound effects didn't fare much better either. Surround sound was scarcely heard, and most of the time, you just don't feel like there's any sound effects!

The Bond pose: I was wondering why, when the movie started, there was no Bond walking out in black and white, focused by the barrel of a gun, and then turned and shoot into the camera. Well, here we have the origin of that shot, although I seriously doubt that was the actual origin of the idea.

Sony, Sony, SONY: if you noticed, this is the first Bond film (in recent years anyway) that does not belong to MGM and United Artist. Columbia Pictures got into the Bond franchise and what do you get? Sony stuff, all the way. Practically every model of the Sony Ericsson phones were displayed prominently in the movie. The unmistakable Sony VAIO laptop, and the very shinny Sony Cybershot digital camera. Now that's a way to promote your products. Seriously, it worked. I nearly bought a K800i after the movie!

At last, I have to admit that I only started watching Bond movies since License To Kill, and I am not that big of a Bond fan. Still, I like him. If you asked me, Timothy Dalton remains the worst Bond ever, and Pierce in Goldeneye is staying at the top. I felt cheated by Casino Royale, but I guess that's what happened when you gamble.
10/10
Best James Bond movie in recent history.
ramintz21 November 2006
I am a huge James Bond fan and was, I admit, a little skeptical of the Bond producers (Barbra Broccolli and Micheal G. Wilson) choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond. I knew he was a good actor, but would he be a good Bond. After seeing the film all my fears were put to rest. He is, in mt humble opinion the best Bond since the early days of Sean Connery. I know a sweeping statement, but I stand by it 100%. First of all, he was the first Bond, since Connery, to actually look like he could do some of the stunts preformed by Bond in the film. HIs perfect portrayal of James Bond helped me overlook the fact that his blond hair wasn't dyed. He portrayed the two Bond mentalities of the film (cold-blooded assassin and witty gentleman) very well. From the beginning the Bond producers said they were making Bond more serious and "real" in light of the fact that Bond had become a slightly silly caricature like character as opposed to Bond, the man from the original Ian Flemming novels. This idea rose another fear of mine. What if they went and tried to make it too serious and took out all the wit a humor and tried to make it more like a drama, because everyone knows Bond is an action movie. Also Bond is and always will be a completely fictitious character. All you can do is put him in real situations, which I think is very necessary for a successful Bond film. But the character itself is meant to be a fantasy. Yet again my fears were put to rest after viewing the film. Just a something I enjoyed, but the title song "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell was superb. Much better than Madonna's sad example of a Bond title song for "Die Another Day". I definitely give this film 10 out of 10. Remember though I am a BOnd fan and that's 10 out of 10 on a Bond scale. Probably 7 or 8 out of ten compared to all other movies.
10/10
Best Bond Ever
terren855614 December 2006
In "Casino Royale," the James Bond legend has been taken to a new, never-before achieved level.

Many movies reveal that they are something special from the first frames. An unconventional and original opening sequence is among the things that grab me from the word go. The opening (black and white) sequence of "Casino Royale" is probably the best of any of the Bond films. It is minimalist but riveting. It takes place in just the sort of unglamorous locations that one would imagine a real-life endgame of that sort would take place. It tells the viewer, with no bones about it, that a new, deadly serious era in the Bond franchise has begun, and that the jokes are over.

Many, many kudos to the director and the writer(s) of the screenplay.

All of those who ridiculed the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond had better sit themselves down for a huge helping of crow. He is far and away the best Bond since Sean Connery, and in my humble opinion, gives even Connery a run for the money in some respects.

In the beginning, Daniel Craig's James Bond is not a nice guy. He is arrogant, reckless, impetuous, and an upstart. But he's also brilliant and resourceful. He's also an expert martial artist, a ruthless and proficient killer (who even smiles and smirks as he watches some of his adversaries die), and a daredevil who has no compunctions about getting his hands and face bruised and dirty. His interpretation of James Bond, far more than any other, is truly frightening at times--a guy who could walk into any rough-and-tumble setting, of any kind, anywhere in the world (without the tux), and be right at home. He is utterly focused and driven, and it is abundantly clear that he will let absolutely nothing stand in the way of accomplishing his mission--including conscience. He is fearless to just short of the point of a death wish. In short, he is exactly the type of guy that you would expect and want, in real life, in the trenches battling ruthless criminals, defending his country.

But that is only part of the story. Craig's version of Bond, though extremely capable and dangerous, makes some crucial mistakes. "Royale" is easily one of the two or three most intelligent of all the Bond flicks in that the villains he faces--even some of the bit players--are not cardboard cut-out caricatures, but are presented as resourceful and crafty as he is. None of his physical encounters are cakewalks.

The women he has in the film are not helpless smitten damsels; one is, in terms of intelligence and wit, more than his match.

I found "Casino Royale" not only a top-notch action thriller, but one that even pushed strongly at the boundaries of intelligent drama. None of the Bond films that I remember delved as deeply into the complexity of the man, and gave as much of a sense of why he is as he is. The film eventually reveals that beneath his seemingly impenetrable armor, he is very much a human being. Toward the end, after having seen Bond experience something that will obviously affect him for a long time, if not forever, the viewer, in seeing how those things change him, will while not necessarily liking him in the end, at the very least, understand him. This is by no means an easy mission for Bond, nor an easy story for the viewer, with predictable sequences and outcomes.

Gone are the ridiculous camp, tongue-in-cheek comical plot elements and elaborate, almost satirical gadgets. As elaborate as some of the action sequences were, they were all completely consistent with the dark, hard-edged atmosphere of the story. Nothing funny or comical about any of them; one does not forget for a moment that these encounters are life-and-death. One can legitimately put "Casino Royale" in the genre of serious spy stories.

The martial arts skills of this James Bond are by far the most believable of that of any other Bond rendition. In that vein, no objective, fair-minded person can deny that the fight sequences in "Casino Royale" are far and away the best of those in any of the Bond films.

And I cannot possibly fail to mention Judy Dench, who, though always superb, delivers the best portrayal of "M" of any that she has before. We get to see a side of her that we never have before as well.

In summary, "Casino Royale" has it all--great action, an intelligent, even believable storyline, and better character development than any of the Bond flicks that I remember. Daniel Craig--along with some superb direction and a great screenplay--has given the James Bond legend an array of qualities, and a new dimension, that have never been seen before, at least for a very long time. Bond is now his; he's more than earned it. I hope he keeps at it for a very long time to come.
10/10
Casino Royale WOW!
timt11422 November 2006
The new James Bond (Daniel Craig) is simply fantastic. He is an incredible actor. I couldn't take my eyes off him the entire movie. He is quite different than the suave character played by Pierce Bronson. He is the new Steve McQueen. He is quite extraordinary. The movie was very good. The plot could have been explained better and been more in depth. Yet, what the plot lacked Daniel Craig made up in acting. Eva Green was my husband's only disappointment. She was a good actress but she just did not meet his expectations of a Bond girl. I had heard movie critics criticize Mr. Craig before the movie and how wrong they are. Daniel Craig is quite a Bond, and I dare say right up there with my favorite, Connery.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A new Bond for a new Generation
dontesuave23 February 2022
This isn't the James Bond your father grew up on. Daniel Craig delivers a fresh yet grounded and gritty take on everyone's favorite spy. Casino Royale is an origin story of sorts. Tells how Bond got his "Double 0" status. Best Bond movie since Goldeneye.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the Names Craig, Daniel Craig
levisader28 November 2006
I LOVED this movie!

I went to the first show of the first day. It was perhaps the best James bond i have ever seen!

Daniel Craig and Pierce Brosnan are to me the best bonds. i was surprised by Daniel Craig's performance. He was dark, cold and also had a little bit of a sense of humor.

This movie is filled with action and a well written story.

If you have not seen it then you should see it right away.

I give this movie a 10 out of 10. if you don't like this movie, you should see it again.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Deserves the accolades
david-dtn14 December 2006
As Bond films go this would have to rank up there with the best of them, if not the Best. Only Connery's From Russia with Love and Gold-finger entertain on the same level. This is a more cold, calculating hard-edged secret agent similar to the original Novel. Full marks to Daniel Craig for his portrayal of Bond. He should be cast in a lot more lead roles after this to make use of his considerable acting talents. He looks the part too, obviously packing on a bit of muscle for the stunts and the physical roles that are by far the best seen in any Bond film thus far. There are one or two weak moments but this has more to do with the script than the plot which is well thought out and offers up a few twists which keeps your interest right the way through. Its a long film but the action never lets up and there's enough eye candy in here to keep your interest even through the less dramatic moments. The score has been criticized by many but it fits the theme quite well and will stay in the memory long after the film ends. The casino scenes could have so easily been the low point of the film after the action that proceeds but it manages to be engaging through most of the scenes and this is important since its what carries the plot. Don't expect many campy gadgets or cheesy one-liners although they are there but are used sparsely and help to lighten the dark tone that runs right from beginning to end. So to sum up. Bond is back, shaken but not stirred.
10/10
Restores your faith in the Bond franchise.
che_for_cuban_leader5 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is the first Bond film which i've truly enjoyed. It cut out the traditional corny jokes, and didn't need loads of gadgets or half naked women to hold your attention.

Daniel Craig was very convincing as James Bond, he brought just the right amount of dry wit to the part. I can imagine Ian Fleming would be very happy with his performance. I hope he plays bond for years to come.

The ending where Vesper turned out to be working with the enemy took me by surprise. It was wonderful.

I also loved the fact that they saved the line "the names Bond, James Bond" until the very end. It's been incredibly overused in many of the films.
2/10
Terrible and boring
annadavies-913013 October 2021
Boring movie, and I was really worried for daniel Craig was going to break a hip when running. Objectifying women still, James Bond movies need to upgraded into this century!
4 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Visceral!
asteffen22 December 2006
Visceral. That was the word I kept thinking about when I was watching this movie. In terms of overall feel, it has little to do with the previous films. The mood was more serious and edgy, and ultimately, gut wrenching. No schmaltz, and no cheese on this meaty burger. Like Christian Bale in "Batman Begins", the new actor and the genesis storyline made for a believable experience. Both Bale and Daniel Craig are intelligent, serious and physically impressive. I feel that either one of them could have done the other role, but here we have them; Bale is Batman, Craig is Bond. I am definitely looking forward to the next installments of each from these talented actors.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Craig as Bond= Excellent
kennyred20 November 2006
Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 is sublime. He has charm and can fight better than all the other Bonds put together. This was a modernised Bond with laptops and mobile phones (Even though it is set before Dr No.) This aside it makes it a better film. I was not a Craig fan before but now i will definitely watch Layer Cake and Munich. Just a word on the theme tune too. Goldfinger, The classics up to Madonnas version of the song in Die Another Day. We where ashamed to say we loved them. However ladies and Gentlemen do not be ashamed to admit you like Chris Cornells I Know Your Name. Simply powerful and gritty like Bond. I finish with if you haven't seen it yet do. Best Bond Film by far. Great Bond. Sexy Bond Girl. Loads of action and we get to see M in her luxury flat.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
different but not enough
renata_genius5 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
the casino royale doesn't have the usual james bond element, i thought it was like any other movie. The car scene is not so magnificent like other bond movie, i was expected the high tech Ashton martin with missile or stealth car. The villain is not so dangerous as well, its just stealing money, rather than a man with powerful ability or a world dominator. But the fighting scene and the plot are good and its a different james bond, craig is so cool and beast not a playboy agent. i love the fall in love scene where the hero really love the bond girl but the bond girl should not die, so it has a perfect happy ending love and action story.
6/10
My Rating
commander-cartwright16 November 2006
After watching the film, I was happy with Daniel Craig. I thought he may not suit the role as James Bond, however he takes the role on brilliantly and looks very sophisticated (especialy with a gun in his hand) A GOOD CHOICE FOR BOND.

On the other hand, the story was just OK. It progressed too slowly for my liking and there was not enough action. Still, the action scenes which I did remember were very good. Daniel Craig played the part very well and even performed his own stunts which is a credit to him. I was glad that the producers did not introduce the "over the top" gadgets as they did in the past few James Bond films, however there are hardly any gadgets and no car chases in Casino Royale, which makes the film less intriguing and fun.

Hopefully Bond 22 will be slightly better with more action scenes and car chases much like the Pierce Brosnan era.

Overall, I would rate it a 6 out of 10, ranking as my 12 favourite James Bond film. Perhaps I should see it again before I make that conclusion.
10/10
not what i expected but...
sausagesandmilk9 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
i thought it was brilliant and so good. there were less gadgets and they went back to the originals and oldies of Conery. Bond was much more human and the plot twists were great. but it was pretty long however. I LOVED it and Daniel Craig was excellent. if your scared of heights the first chain is not for you. the crane scene is excellent but the whole movie is a little more serious and violent but the characters(007) finally has some emotion besides being in love with women. The fact of the matter is that small children are not meant to see this movie with the BRUTAl torture scene and where she drowns. but i absolutely loved it and definitely recommend you go see it because it won't be the same if its not on the big screen.
9/10
What other Bonds?
schwepps21 November 2006
If you've been following my profile for the past few months, or know me personally, you'll know how excited I was for the new James Bond. I've always been a Bond fan but I only got majorly into the franchise when I purchased the box set in 2003. I do enjoy the films and will be the first one to admit that there have been some cheesy moments in the franchise. From a 57 year old Roger Moore jumping around on the Golden Gate to the Aston Martin "Vanish", the disappearing car in Die Another Day, the franchise has had some low points.

To be absolutely honest, after Die Another Day I feared the franchise was over. It became too far fetched and the script became cheesier than a Bic MacMeal hold the lettuce extra cheese. Then news of a new James Bond arose and the speculation of who would be the new Bond. Everyone had their favourites. I was gunning for Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen or Jude Law. And then Daniel Craig was announced. Along with the rest of the world I thought "Who? Have the producers gone mad?" And then I thought... JB is a multimillion dollar franchise, they know what they're doing (George Lazenby begs the question of if they actually do know).

Finally, the trailer came out and then the excitement REALLY started. I read "Casino Royale" in February. Took me a week to read. It is gripping. I tried to imagine Craig in the role, but considering I had only seen his picture I rented "Layer Cake" and saw "Munich" and ultimately decided "What a Rockstar Bond".

Anyway, I was invited to the screening of Casino Royale last Monday which was to be shown last Friday. I could not sleep on Monday night. I was counting the days. Finally, I got to the preview on Fri morning. First one there, first one in. Took a seat in the middle of the back row and waited... listening to the themes from the other Bonds.

After the longest 30 minutes of my life the film started.

I don't want to spoil anything about the film for anyone, so I won't go into detail. First off, this film is VERY close to the book (the beginning is not in the book, but the main story is directly from the book). A lot of dialogue is straight from the book and most of the scenes are out of the book too.

Daniel Craig rocks. WOW. I was amazed. He IS James Bond. No doubt about it. Silenced the critics. Not for one moment did I think "ya, he's OK but he doesn't have the *insert a character trait* of *insert one of the other Bonds*". In fact, I will go so far as to say "what other Bonds?". Besides for Connery, Craig is the best. He is cold and ruthless, like the character in the book, but he pulls it off so well. There are no cheesy one-liners. In fact, where you'd expect a silly Bond-like chirp, there is nothing. The pre titles sequence is AMAZING. Titles work well with the song. The stunts are incredible and the cast is great. Campbell's direction was classy and everything was SO well placed. All the elements of a James Bond film are there, BUT not in the way you'd expect them. There is only 1 bit of shameless product placement/advertising and 1 scene which borders on cheesy/unrealistic, otherwise its all there.

Another thing I found was that characters of the "new" bond era (Brosnan) that have been around for 10 years now are finally becoming comfortable in their roles. Dame Judy Dench was superb. David Arnold's score was also great (I hated his scores in the Brosnan films). There are Bond veterans still slogging it out on this film such as Peter Lamont (set design) and Chris Corbould (special effects). Oh yeah... and don't miss out on the Richard Branson (2 sec) and producer Michael G. Wilson's (2 minute) cameo appearances.

Throughout the film I had given it an 8/10 in my head... until the very last scene. That notched it up to a 9.75/10. I was on my chair cheering. Wow. Wow wow wow wow wow.

For those of you that think I am a biased, you should reopinionate because as a die-hard fan, I should be the most critical.

This film is fantastic and you would be a fool not to see it..

James Bond is alive and well and he's living at Casino Royale.
7/10
Excellent film, but the real Bond is lost ¿forever?
karl-29210 December 2006
I've found the film MARVELOUS, definitely you have to see it. But in the credits of the film shouldn't say "based on Ian Fleming's James Bond". This new Bond has nothing to do with the always stylish, elegant, faultless and phlegmatic British gentleman of the novel. Or it should be named different, perhaps 008.

With that remark, I didn't mean the film is not good, it is certainly an excellent action movie with a secret agent that could be any other agent. If you have read the novel of Fleming you'll not recognize the character.

To finish, I'd like to remark a little -in my opinion- illogical sequence. When Bond is tortured (you'll see how) the next sex scene is virtually impossible for any man, even for this new James Bond!!!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This was the Bond best ever
padresteve18 November 2006
I have seen every Bond movie and own most on DVD. I wait for each new one like it was the first. My first Bond was Roger Moore and I had to go back to see the Connery films. I have found each Bond, with the exception of Lazenby to be enjoyable in different ways. Connery did set the bar for future Bonds. Roger Moore was smooth and funny, Dalton was fairly intense and Brosnan of course outstanding. Craig sets the new standard and I had my doubts about him before I saw the movie. He combined a great athleticism and wry humor with some dark undertones. This film was incredible, the special effects and stunts, the spectacular venues and the great villains. Mikkelson was really great, not a comic book villain, but one you could really believe exists, cold and determined. The I think all the bad guys were all great and almost everyone but Bond seemed to be bad. I liked the way they introduced Felix Leiter in this film. I liked the harder edge and found Mr Craig great as Bond and I liked the way he played the dark humor in the film. I am already eagerly awaiting "Bond 22." Bravo!!!!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond film of all time
ciancaitlin29 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig's debut as James Bond is absolutely stunning. Gone are the seemingly involuntary raised eyebrows, the often silly gadgets, the continued sexual harassment of a female civil servant (Miss Moneypenny) and in their place are a well-crafted highly original story, with more twists and turns than the street map of London and central performances worthy of, at the very least, an Academy Award nomination.

Focussing, entirely on James Bond's early days as an MI6 double-0 agent, Eon Productions; the makers of the Bond films since 1962, have completely re-invented the Bond film formula, by dispensing of superfluous action and unnecessary sexual exploits and instead creating a film with poise, intelligence and reality.

With Casino Royale, the audience are asked to forget the Bond films which preceded it, as if one is pressing a "reset" button, much in the same vein as Christopher Nolan's 2005 "Batman Begins".

This film is, without doubt, "James Bond Begins". Judi Dench (a national treasure of Britain) here plays M, with irrascibility and genuine disdain for Bond's methods, instead of being his surrogate mother as evidenced in "Tomorrow Never Dies" and Pierce Brosnan's subsequent "efforts".

Daniel Craig's Bond is, for the first time, a human being who bleeds.

While "Die Another Day" touched on the possibility that Bond is able to be captured and tortured; Casino Royale goes the whole-hog by having Bond not only experiencing a near-fatal cardiac arrest, but barely surviving a horrific car crash, which causes him to become captured and in a break with traditional Bond films, he his stripped naked and horrifically tortured.

All the neigh-sayers who rubbished Daniel Craig's casting as Bond must surely be eating their own words; as this brilliant young actor, from the Wirral, firmly establishes himself as the premier Bond and not a convenient replacement for Sean Connery, as was the case with Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan.

Craig's Bond is true to Ian Fleming's creation.

Of significant note are the characters of Vesper Lynd (played with gutso and originality by Eva Green) and the film's central villain; Le Chiffre (again, played with stereo-type smashing originality), by Mads Mikkelsen.

Vesper Lynd is not just another Bond "girl". Every leading lady, in the Bond films, since 1995 has described themselves in interviews as "far different from the hysterical blonde bimbo", but have always failed to live up to this statement in their performance.

Eva Green gives us a truly multi-layered character who suffers emotional trauma when witnessing Bond's brutal and prolonged killing of two African guerillas. Her character is genuinely in love with Bond; a sentiment which is clearly and believably reciprocated.

Le Chiffre, played with chilling accuracy by the aforementioned Mads Mikkelsen is, for the first time in Bond villain history, an entirely three-dimensional character, with the same flaws as any other person. This villain has asthma, not the consequential by-product of Nazi genetic interference (as was the case with "A View To A Kill"'s Max Zorin). He is genuinely fearful of his life (there are no Jaws or Tee-Hee caricature henchmen here to save the villain's day) as evidenced by the scene when he and his girlfriend are threatened in their hotel room by the again, aforementioned African guerillas; who's money Le Chiffre had lost, to Bond, while laundering it at the poker table.

You must approach this film, as I did, not having watched any of the other Bond films for several months. If you do not, there is the danger that you may be expecting more of the same. You will be disappointed, but can seek solace in the fact that Casino Royale, is without any doubt, the best Bond film of all time and that Daniel Craig IS miles better than Connery.
10/10
yes, this is the best one
swedishfish77719 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
yeah this is the best bond movie ever it might be the fact it is made by a British company just throwing it out there i am not one of those guys who hates America and everything, cause we are so wrong about everything but i just cant get over how many wonderful differences there are in this

Classy song in the beginning, less of a creepy domineering bond who is always around skanks who are kissing his ass, vesper is a catch, and she really needs him to earn his respect.. Most bond girls would just give it up like prom night

Touching scene: beautiful when he licks her fingers of the blood, the vulnerability of bond really shows itself in this

The fighting in this movie looks so real, i almost enjoy it more than the big explosions and special effects, which are amazing as well

With this bond, you are gripping on every word he says nothing goes to waste film making at its best bravo, Albert r broccoli
9/10
Great!
cervantesangi20 May 2020
Yet another movie of James Bond that I've watched. This movie was one of the first movie I watched of James Bond and that's how I started liking them. I remember that when I first saw this movie and the cool cars Bonds would drive I would dream of having an Aston Martin one day. I really liked this movie because it had a lot of action and the stunts were good. I liked how it talks more about his love life than the mission. It shows that he falls in love and his enemy uses that against him. In Quantum of Solace It talks about how he lost someone he loved which I assume is the James Bond girl. I also like this movie because its mainly based in Italy as are many of his movies.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Different...but in an extremely good way
kushball2468-119 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When I first heard about this movie and saw the trailers for it, my expectations of it and Daniel Craig were very low. The first time I saw Daniel Craig in one of the trailers, I felt like he should've been one of the bad guys. He has this tough and, not evil, but angry looking exterior. Once I saw the movie, I was stunned. Daniel Craig did great, even with some of the comical lines, like when his drink was spiked and he almost dies in his car, then he came back to the poker table looking just fine and said, "That last hand almost killed me." The whole theater was laughing. You do have to kind of get used to him as the movie plays on, but once it ends and you get to the final scene, you know that he is James Bond.

The one main thing i didn't really like about the movie was the title song by Chris Cornel titled "You Know My Name." I'm not saying the song was bad. After I got home when the movie finished, I listened to that song. After a few times listening to it, I got used to it and now i can't stop listening to it. It's a pretty good song, I just didn't feel like it should've been used for the title credits in a Bond movie. It doesn't really give you the Bond kind of feeling. That's just how I feel about it. If you liked it, then great, good for you, at least the whole movie was amazing.

Aside from the one thing I didn't like about the movie, I loved the action sequences. There wasn't too little action and there wasn't too much of it either, which is just perfect. The one black guy who Bond chases through a construction site is crazy. He jumps from like 30 feet high onto the ground. Since this is how Bond started, he obviously messes up at times, which makes him human. Another reason I like this Bond is because it is more realistic. No, he doesn't have all the little gadgets or even Q, but they weren't really needed for this movie. They will probably appear in the next Bond movie, which is now being called Bond 22.

The Bond girls in this Bond were, as usual, smokin' hot. Even though I don't really like Eva Green too much, she was very good in her part as Vesper Lynd. She pulls off the character by making it beautiful and also conniving. Caterina Murino was good, but sadly, did not have much screen time with Bond. She almost gets lucky with Bond, and the next time she comes in the movie she's dead.

Oh ya, I like how they chose to put the Bond theme song at the end after he says the famous Bond line, "The name's Bond...James Bond." That is when we know that he is now the Bond we all know and love. That is where his theme begins. OK, all in all, this movie was excellent I don't think they should've changed one bit of it, except for the really stupid title song they chose for it, which was really really stupid. I recommend all Bond lovers and even just movie-lovers to go see this for themselves and enjoy it.
9/10
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
chris-202416 November 2006
Wonderfully made Bond movie! Perhaps it's because of Ian Fleming's novel, perhaps it's because of the direction.

My overriding thought when I left though was "What could they have achieved if they had given Brosnan this sort of script?"

On the whole though, probably the best Bond movie ever. But the chosen Bond himself is still a compromise in my eyes. This may be remembered in a similar way to Lazenby's movie - a good effort with the wrong casting.

Well worth a watch though.

Excellent movie in and of itself.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best bond film ever!!!
allowallo_13531 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This was a very good bond film,even though i am not really a big bond fan,this was a very good thriller,brilliant special effects and very well done. The only bad point was the romance scene between bond and the 2nd women he met,i don't really know why that went on for so long,fine some romance but hey!! A lot of people who i have asked and have seen it said that the main baddie-''Le chiffre''was killed soon,it was a very very good build up to his death,but you will find if you watch the last bond film or some of the old ones,the baddies are killed in a dramatic way. Daniel Craig is a good actor and is the right build for playing someone like bond and he adds to a new dimension to it. Brilliant film see it now!!!
10/10
Daniel Craig Delivers The Bond We Have Been Waiting For
ArsenalForEva17 November 2006
Casino Royale is the best bond movie ever going back-to-basics with James Bond now a more gritty and darker character just like in Ian Fleming's novels. I know Daniel Craig had his critics for being cast but he answers every single one of them with a breath-taking performance of bond. What he brings to the screen as an immense presence and showed the vulnerability of bond, I'd say Daniel Craig's a better bond than Sean Connery. From the first few seconds of the scenes in black and white, you know the Bond movie has changed. I think it was helped by no gadgets because in place of them were realistic characters and a realistic script. The script was sharp and witty and the chemistry between Craig and Evan Green ( Vesper Lynd) was superb, the roles were made for each other.What also made Daniel Craig brilliant for the role is his physique what shows you he could kill you if he wanted and is an impressive mover while doing stunts. I must thank the producers for bring back director Martin Campbell who also relaunched Bond with Goldeneye, This time he launches the Beginning of the New bond and i hope Daniel Craig is he to stay.

Martin Campbell has directed some breath-taking action-stunts going from a construction site to an embassy to Venice and more. The movie also showed that Bond is not invincible such as the torture scene when he had to recover from it. The ending is brilliant because its the legacy which will go into "Bond 22" The only bad points are that the music wasn't very good and we didn't hear the 007 theme tune till the ending and that the ending was slightly rushed but forget about that. This is a must-See movie for anyone not just bond fans. This deserves an Oscar.

And as they say " Bond Will Return On May 2, 2008
9/10
Im no film critic.... But this film ROCKS!!!
jamyjamesracer30 August 2008
Before you watch this film don't expect to see your classic Bond, the one that over the many years has excelled in the art of women, catch phrases and re-adjusting his tie at the most inconvenient time. (which by the way like 99% of British males I have always enjoyed ) This Bond is like no other you have seen before, and it gets back to basics, of which i feel Daniel Craig acts OUTSTANDINGLY. This film shows raw emotion never before seen in a bond character, it delves in to his love gained and love lost, and most importantly explains why he has become what we have expected from all movies previous.

Watch this film for what it is, The making and foundations of JAMES BOND!
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bond is back on track
salted1126 November 2006
By far the best Bond film in years. Following the degeneration of Roger Moore, the Living Daylights was a reinvigoration of the Bond genre, with Timothy Dalton delivering a grimmer, more humourless Bond. Critics did not receive the two Dalton movies well, and after a prolonged period, Director Martin Campbell was brought on scene to deliver Pierce Brosnan into our midst with Goldeneye. Following the over-blown and steady crap of the next two Brosnan movies, whose Bond seemed to meld a hardened exterior with a very campy Moore-like humour, Martin Campbell is counted on once again to deliver a Bond film that will engage viewers, maintain the themes we all enjoy about this character, and tell a story that is relevant for this day and age. Cutting much of the chaff of invisible cars and zip lines hidden in belt buckles, Bond must utilize his wits and skill at arms to maintain the aim of stopping a global terrorist banking syndicate from becoming a major player on the world stage. The villain is ruthless in how he conducts business, torturing and bribing his way through his affairs. He displays sinister physical characteristics often attributed to Bond villains, but still remains fallible, in that is seen several times throughout the movie that there is always a bigger fish. Bond himself, as portrayed by Daniel Craig, is a secret agent in the making, grappling with what his soul is worth compared to the service of Queen and country. His arrogance now has consequences that he must atone for, and shows that years of super secret training can still lead to mistakes that must be answered for, and then corrected. The heroine comes with a name that is both intriguing, but not vulgarly expressive, although even this Bond theme is poked fun at as part of the well written dialogue. Her initial exchange with Bond more than cements herself within the movie, showing that there are places for strong female leads in these sorts of movies, as seen earlier in Bourne Identity. Martin Campbell weaves all of this with three major action scenes that are impressive to behold in their complexity and obvious difficulty for both the actors/stunt-men and the cinematography to properly capture it. Failings of this movie are few, but some are obvious, primarily in several shameless product placements for Sony, and another for Omega watches. Also, despite the lack of major gadgetry, there still could have been more originality in Bond's spy gear. Him holding a PDA showing him navigation to his destination is nothing new today, and something a bit more showy, like a watch laser or pocket rebreather would have been welcomed. Nonetheless, the two and a half hours will be well spent by anyone so inclined to give this newest Bond and newest movie a chance.
The bond screenwriters are back, bold, angry, and... confused
Malvolio16129 November 2006
For some of us, waiting for the next Bond film is like a leap year child waiting for their birthday... for others it hardly causes a flutter of interest. Casino Royale will both delight and disappoint the 007-philes, whilst reaffirming the disinterest of the rest of the world. Rather like the patients in "House", each Bond film makes some small improvements, simultaneously developing worrying new problems.

Daniel Craig works really well as Bond. Much closer to the sharpness of Connery, he escapes the leeriness of Brosnan and Moore, is less of a ham than Dalton, and lets not even mention a Lazenby comparison. Craig totally suits the action sequences... but is let down by the scriptwriters in other respects. Taking into account that this is "Bond Begins" - we should expect the gradual creation of 007's character - there is still a noticeable lack of quips, pacey dialogue and villainous banter (surely the villains don't need time to mature?). As my girlfriend commented - they give him lots of opportunity to show off a great body, but rarely any twinkly eyed moments. Craig's Bond may be a diamond in the rough - only time and better screen writing will tell.

The pace of this film is somewhat different - especially for those used to the recent camped-up Brosnan affairs. The action sequences are much more akin to "The Bourne Identity" or "The Transporter" - punchy, adrenalin fuelled, pugilistic ballets in a maelstrom of splinters, bullets and nails. This actually makes a really welcome change from the somewhat surgical gun fights of previous films. So top marks for well structured - if not totally original - scenes here.

The surrounding film - particularly (and most disappointingly) the last 30-40 minutes - is a somewhat different kettle of Walther PPKs. Again we have Judi Dench's maternal M (whatever was wrong with the cold-hearted, gruff old male M - never felt the need to bring emotion into it, and thus was infinitely better at being amusing when cuffing Bond round the lug'ole). We lose Q - although John Cleese is so patently not the right person to play him that this isn't any real sacrifice. We gain characters who are a strange cross between the cast of Alias and Austin Powers. But worst the scriptwriters appear to have a sub-GCSE level of ability to handle Bond's emotional journey to becoming 007. Compared with say "Batman Begins" (where, although not a fantastic film, the emotional journey was still pacey enough to keep the momentum of the film going), "Casino Royale" labours to make its point. Daniel Craig is a fantastic actor, and could probably speak volumes in a single glance. Instead we have to wallow through minutes of footage (so typical in Hollywood) designed to hold the audiences hand, and point out the emotional reasons for the final events. This is so painful that towards the end there is almost a "Captain Scarlett"like moral moment over the phone with M. It's here (and the real lack of humour) where "Casino Royale" is let down. Of course, for anyone with a modern, internet-length concentration span, none of this will be a problem, as there is generally a fight sequence every 10 or 15 minutes. But for those who like films to at least attempt to be well-crafted, it's a bit of a disappointment, even without the watch-checking moments.

So overall: by no means the worst attempt at Bond; some cracking good stuff; and a dire need to find someone who can make a script hang together.
8/10
New Bond
kelvin_okl1 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can't recall when was the last time a Bond movie impressed me from the start and left such a positive image after the end. For so long it has been the same 1 dimensional version of Bond. That of a tuxedo wearing, Martini drinking, Aston Martin (throw in a couple of BMW in between) gadget filled Bond.

The "Brosnan Saga" typically portrays Bond as a super agent of sorts with tons of gadgets and a car that blows things up all the time. Always winning the girls. The suave clean cut looks.

Come the 21st Bond movie. A new Bond. A blonde Bond. A Bond with distinctive eyes. A much darker Bond. A less "clean" Bond if I might add. How often have you seen Bond bleed? Not very often right? Well not in this movie.

Go in watch the movie with an open mind. Throw out all your existing notions of James Bond - 007 and you will enjoy the movie and more importantly the new Bond.

There's no tank driving in the middle of Moscow with a cheeky adjustment of the tie in between.

There's no suave Bond like Brosnan. What does Bond like to drink? Doesn't matter. He doesn't really care actually. Oh and Bond does loose his nerves and it shows.

This is the new Bond. The Bond that clicks best with the "real world" much more than previous Bond movies.

I like the direction this Bond is moving towards. The music sums up the feel. Its not sexy nor meant to portray sleekness. Its bordering on the rough sides of traditional bond fare, more like roughness and pain.

So great movie. Brilliant revival of a sagging franchise. Its not a blank action movie with tons of booms. Yes there are explosions and what not. But just watch the opening chase sequence. That's what Bond should be. Its not the typical Bond. Its the new Bond.
Batman Returns as Bond, James Bond.
darrell-williams21 November 2006
This is by far the best Bond film ever. No longer cute and full of gadgets, Casino Royale is tactile and real, cutting a brilliant swath through the two-dimensional world of previous Bond films, leaving the viewer wanting more.

Craig is refreshing and earnest, not a poster-boy Bond in tight fitting tuxedo spouting corny one-liners (those he does utter are precise and perfect – the writers are to be commended). No longer the invincible super-hero, this Bond emerges from the ashes of his own failures as the best of the bunch.

Some of the action sequences are indeed fantastic, but not preposterous, blood and muscle are on display here, not the special effects department. Even the long card playing sequence, devoid of guns and fists, is tight and engaging.

If you appreciated how Batman Returns elevated the franchise of the Caped Marvel, you'll enjoy Casino Royale. Hats off to everyone who participated in making this movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Jaded by 007
Zardoze29 November 2006
I don't know if I can give a fair critic of Casino Royal since I must confess I feel significantly jaded by my own fan-hood of 007 through the years. It started of course with Connery's portrayal of Bond which set the iconic standard and which was such a big part of my movie childhood. He's always been my favorite Bond. Having said that, I like to consider myself open to change especially if it's in a character's portrayal that brings it closer to the author's original creation.

I also very much enjoyed Daniel Craig's performance in Layer Cake and knew beforehand that I would enjoy him as bond regardless of the varying differences personality and body type to previous Bond heroes. Craig to me has more of a street fighter roughness than the tall dark & handsome stereo-types of Bond movie history, sort of like Jason Statham, who is really great in The Transporter I & II. This is good but I did find a certain dichotomy missing in the character that I enjoy in Connery's films which is a cool sophisticated demeanor in contrast to the physical take control ability. Although in Casino Royal it's there in the script, I didn't feel the same smooth aloofness during the non-action segments with Daniel Craig. Craig is unquestionably cool under pressure but it's more of a pensive stiff-upper-lip sort of cool. Again on the other hand it would be difficult to ask for more in terms of his action performance. On that score he serves up very high marks.

It just occurred to me that I could go on & on making comparisons between Craig and Connery which I think in the end is probably a waste of time because it's just apples & oranges. But it IS all Bond and every Bond fan should experience this newest incarnation.

What about the storyline? It's an appropriate theme reflecting present day issues. British Secret Service is trying to track down the original source of big money used to support worldwide terrorism and put the bloodhound Bond on the trail. But for me as I imagine it is with many Bond fans, the plot was always secondary to the particulars such as the way Bond would execute the improbable and extricate himself from dire situations. Casino Royal will most likely satisfy on both counts. Go see it!

Oh yea, and I am still a fan of the 1967 silly version!
10/10
An Original Bond Movie!!!
charltonrebello16 November 2006
Dear all,

Its one of the most original Bond Movies of all times. The movie is filmed in the best locations in the world. Daniel Craig is a good actor as James Bond 007, but Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery were better Bonds. Over all An action packed Movie,some Humour, The Originality of earlier James Bond movies like the train ride,the beach scene, the old Aston Martin,the Vodka martini, best part is that the beginning of the movie is at the end of it.Eva Green looks awesome without any make-up in front of the bathroom mirror, Bond is wearing ST.Dupont cuff-lings. Alessandra Ambrosia is also there in the film for a second or two.

Must see for all Spy fans!!!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best Bond ever! Daniel Craig is amazing!
buellfire30 November 2006
I went into this movie not expecting to like it at all.

The movie has a very easy to follow plot and is very action-filled without the camera shakiness that seems to be so popular in action movies. It did have a few slow spots near the end of the movie, and was somewhat long-ish. Eva Green was fantastic as Vesper, very beautiful, intelligent and yet naive, even child-like at times.

Daniel Craig was perfect for this role. He is absolutely stunning in every scene. His eyes and body are incredible and demand attention. He has this suave undertone, without being too slick, and leaves an impression of being a steady and tough, even rugged man. Daniel Craig plays the character well, keeping a perfect balance between the calculating roughness of a 007 agent and a gentle and loving man.

I enjoyed this Bond movie the most and can't wait for the next one! This was the best movie that I have seen in a long time - well done!
9/10
Probably the best Bond movie ever
rmlattimore14 December 2006
As a BIG fan of Sean Connery -- perhaps the last great movie star -- I have to say Craig may have delivered the best Bond portrayal. He'll never have that Connery persona, but he's tremendous in the role. Bond is, essentially, a hired killer for the British Government (and Craig certainly looks the part, from his muscled physique to his steely cold blue eyes). As the movie shows, Bond _cannot_ be a thug ("any thug can kill", as M says), but we see him evolve into the more refined -- and more advanced -- Bond that we know. From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, and On Her Majesty's Secret Service were my Bond movie gold standards and this one ranks with them. One way you know this movie is good is that there will never be an Austin Power's parody. This Bond is deadly serious.

To be sure, there are a lot of elements in old Bond movies that aren't in CR -- Moneypenny, Q, phantasgorimical gadgets, one-liners -- and if that makes a Bond movie for you, you won't like CR. This movie is not some fantasy. The score is OK, it's certainly not among the best of Bond. If you're too dim to "get" the opening theme, you're too dim to "get" the movie. The James Bond Theme appears at the end, for a reason that I thought obvious, but which appears to have escaped most critics -- which makes me think they're looking for something, ANYTHING, to criticize. Oddly, the weakest parts of the movie -- particularly the romance, which was poorly realized, I thought -- were in the original book. But if you want to see a story that focuses on Bond the character, from the point of view of his origins and motivations, CR is a must-see. Although the overall plot line is mediocre due to a weak third act, the dialogue is some of the best ever in a Bond movie. And when Craig does get a witty line, he nails them (viz his line when returning to the poker table, and his little finger line). They have more impact because they're employed more judiciously. People have issues with a woman M, but when the woman is Dame Judi Dench, you need to lose the issues. She nails every line; I particularly liked her line "one more syllable and I'll have you shot".) Eva Green didn't do much for me, but her part wasn't terribly well written, in that we didn't see her romance evolving with Bond. She had some good dialogue, though.

I must say, after reading several reviews criticizing the movie, I find them rather odd. Martin Campbell is criticized as a hack, but his prior work with Bond ("Goldeneye") was hailed by many of the same people lambasting him for CR. (For the record, I though his work was quite good in both.) And the critics all seem to hate different aspects of CR -- some think Craig didn't look the part, some did, some said it was too much like Jason Bourne (because it WASN'T a fantasy), some hated the product placement (like we haven't seen THAT in recent Bonds) -- point being, they seem to have hated CR PURELY because it was CR. Judge the movie on its own merits. (I particularly like the review that said "everyone in the theater were in admiration and awe, except me" -- Dyan think maybe YOU'RE the one out of step? For the record, the movie drew applause at the closing credits.) One thing one anti-Craig site harps on is that CR has trailed Happy Feet at the box office, disregarding (a) Happy Feet is the no. 1 movie, CR has run no. 2, (b) Happy Feet is something of a phenomenon; everyone I know who has seen it raves about it (the same is true for CR) (c) Casino Royale, per theater, out performed Happy Feet which was released in 370 more theaters (According to Box Office Mojo, Casino Royale acquired, on average, $11,890 per theater, while Happy Feet grossed $10,918 per theater.) (d) CR will go down as one of, if not the, biggest grossing Bond movies ever. A movie that grosses almost $400 million worldwide in less than a month is an unmitigated financial success, anyway you slice it.
7/10
Good action film...but where are you, John Barry?
edshifres18 November 2006
For those devoted Bond fans who year after year hope to see a resurgence of the unmatched Connery-styled OO7 films with John Barry's fabulous soundtrack scores, it isn't going to happen. Today's filmmakers are catering to today's generation, who are interested only in action and special effects, not clever dialog-hidden innuendos, charismatic ambiance, or memorable John Barry incidental music throughout the films.

Now the good news. Casino Royale (2006) is a terrific action film. More of an action than adventure film. Much credit has to be given to Daniel Craig's OO7, as he successfully and comfortably fits the role. Craig is a good actor who should repeat the OO7 role in many more Bond films. While he is not what I regard as handsome (albeit 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder') and a blond OO7 is not what most people would have in mind, his distinguished acting ability, hard-edged persona and well-built physique more than qualifies him as the new OO7 for today's audience.

The storyline isn't a maze of interlocking clever twists, the characters are not that memorable, and the opening score "You Know My Name" by Chris Cornell is one of the worst, as it does nothing for the emotions. If you don't get goose bumps from the beauty of the opening score, the score fails.

Despite the pitfalls, overall, Casino Royale works effectively for today's OO7 market. Unfortunately, the charismatic early 1960s OO7 films such as Goldfinger and Thunderball are no longer being made, but their "shelf life" will exist in perpetuity, unlike today's OO7 films.

Ed Shifres
10/10
Best Bond Movie in last two decades
qkill00716 November 2006
This is the best Bond movie I have seen so far, Daniel Craig fits the Bond role completely. Enjoyed the premiere here in London. A very good prequel to the bond series. Therez a parkour scene in the beginning which gets you glued to the screen is amazing. No fancy gadgets or cartoon-type villains which gives the movie a realistic feel. Worthwhile watch and looks best in the cinema. Compared to the original novel, the movie has been given a modern setting and a few twists in the story as well. I guess the sequel would evolve the Bond character even further. The dry wit and rugged look will definitely have Daniel Craig carve out his own identity as one of the Bond characters over the years very well ! 10 out of 10 for this one
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best bond, ever
montella094 May 2007
I have bee an avid Bond fan my entire life, and despite all the rave reviews for Casino Royale, it took me a while to get around and finally see it. Now that I have, I more than know why people love it so much. This is by far the best Bond movie, EVER. I loved Connery as Bond, and I loved the one good Bond film by Brosnan (i.e. Goldeneye), but Daniel Craig is simply outstanding as Bond. The movie overall was just outstanding and I've never been so excited and so into an action movie. It was so much more than perfect action though, it was fantastic acting, a beautiful European cinematography and setting, an overall darker theme/feel to both Bond and the story, non-stop surprises and plot twists, amazing soundtrack, and of course, the ridiculously gorgeous Eva Green. This movie will always have a special place in my favourite movies list. It was the Bond film that surpassed all others. If its anything like this movie, I say bring on the next installment !
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Awesome movie!
jenbublbhnd3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This movie was amazing! It was action packed and full of suspense. My favorite part was when Vesper brought Bond back to life!! Also I loved the chase scene at the beginning of the movie. The boy has got hops!!!! Bond did do a good job with keeping up with him. I have never seen a James Bond movie and never really wanted to. My boyfriend had to drag me to go see this movie. I am glad I went to see it! Now that I saw this movie I am sure I will want to go see another James Bond flick. Of course this is only if Daniel Craig is James Bond. If you want to see a great movie this weekend go see Casino Royale!! 10/10 Awesome Movie!!!!!
10/10
Finest Bond since the 60s? Oh yes!
bee_rules16 November 2006
I was nervous in the two weeks building up to this latest installment, mainly due to the fact Bond was now blonde haired, blue eyed and comparably smaller than any of the others. But, after watching Casino Royale, Daniel Craig has redefined what it takes to play James Bond. No longer does the actor need to make a funny remark or think up a quirky pun every time a villain dies, no, instead, Daniel has transformed Bond into a darker, colder, almost robot-like being.

Which of course is perfect for the movie.

From the first moment you lay your eyes on Daniel, you feel a sense of change, "this isn't going to be your average Bond movie" comes into your mind. Out goes a lot of the CGI from Die Another Day and back is the stylish, real-life shots that were so apparent in the 1960's, the film is shot brilliantly, intense yet slow enough to keep up to date on what is actually taking place. The settings are as you'd expect, luxurious, beautiful, tranquil and any other descriptions that come under "Rich Man's World".

It's not only Daniel Craig who puts in a sterling performance, for me Eva Green almost steals the whole show. She's a breath of fresh air from the previous Bond girls, gone is the macho "I can shoot a gun and kick some ass" girl and instead comes in a insecure yet head turning woman. I hope she's up for a Best Actress award or two, she certainly gets my vote! So in all, Casino Royale takes the franchise back to it's roots, the 60's feel grabs you by the neck and never lets go but you still get a modern sense of things, the cars and the gadgets are still there. Daniel Craig has most probably won a lot more fans after this performance and long may he continue as 007!
9/10
One of the best Bond films, one of the best Bonds
arikol14 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I remember reading Casino Royale many years ago and thinking how brutal it was, glad to see the harshness was kept. I knew I was in for a different type of Bond film from the first sequence where he tries to drown an enemy agent in a public bathroom sink (after they smash up the whole room in a massive fight)

Daniel Craig may possibly be the best Bond yet (although Connery is pretty much untouchable for sheer coolness) and is also a pretty believable actor, both as a badass as well as showing his softer side.

The bond chick, Eva Green is also excellent, actually an actress as well as a pretty face and her character is realistic (as well as her dilemma and subsequent actions) a real upgrade from joke characters like dr. Christmas Jones.

It is probably not necessary to praise Judi Dench but I will! Dame Judi is in my opinion easily the best M ever, giving the role real weight and making M look like someone to be reckoned with. She is just so much more subtle than most of her predecessors.

The whole movie was well done with none of those superman sequences that have made the last few films a bit too much like an MTV music video. Also the lack of obvious CGI, slow motion fight scenes and wire stunts was oh so refreshing.

Here's hoping that the next one will be as good!
10/10
BOND IS BACK!!! some very minor spoilers!!!
quikbdr72020 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What more can I say, Bond IS back. I was very worried at first that Daniel Craig couldn't do it, but wow, what a great performance and outstanding movie. I honestly haven't seen a movie this good for a long time and I see a lot of movies. To start off here, Craig took over for Brosnan and made Brosnan obsolete. Pierce could only do it for GoldenEye, but failed with poor plots, even poorer acting and no believable action. Craig comes in as an emotional (yes, emotional) and trigger-happy Bond (well of course) but goes out as a gritty, dark James Bond that Ian Flemming originally depicted in his novels. The acting from each and every actor and actress was amazing. Craig's performance was outstanding, he has the perfect blend of British wit and humor, and a damn good shot and brawler(let alone physically fit, as mentioned by my girlfriend, exact words: "wow he's so hot!"). No over the top action here either. MINOR SPOILER!!! the opening sequence after the credits done excellent and put to a great song by Chris Cornell of Soundgarden and Audioslave has Bond chasing a bomb maker who can run and jump like a superhero, however, after reading up on him, he actually invented the art of free falling, basically moving the way he does in the movie, so that had me take my rating from a 9/10 to a perfect 10. No cheesy gadgets either, state of the art technology but nothing like the other Bond's that seem to always work out so conveniently for him, SPOILER!!! after almost dying from being poisoned by the main bad guy (excellently acted bad guy too!) he has an emergency kit in his Aston Martin and it even fails on him. Won't go any further. All together, Daniel Craig has done what Sean Connery first did for the Bonds, only now we see a dark and ruthless James Bond, but hey, he still gets the girls and has a great sense of humor. "We have to talk Mr. White, ***SHOOT*** the name is Bond, James Bond." haven't heard it that good for quite some time! 10/10, 4 stars across the board this is the best Bond made in years and I look forward to #22 and hopefully many more to come, as long as Craig is Bond and the Vodka Martini is shaken not stirred, The franchise can come alive once again!!!
8/10
Who's Pierce again?
starikkalachnikov6 December 2006
I love the old James Bond movies, with the great master-plans and great villains. They're just old-school because you can see James Bond winning when the opening credits roll by. So when Pierce Brosnan started to 'act' like Bond I see a combination of Roger Moore and just a little Sean Connery. He just doesn't strike me that hard like Sean Connery. Besides that, I've always felt that Pierce read his script, knows he'll win in this film and puts a smirk on his face and acts like that throughout the film.

I respect the old James Bond movies up until 'A View to a Kill', but I just don't like Pierce, he was continuing upon a worn out formula of always winning against the stupidest enemies known to man.

Not so with Casino Royale with Daniel Craig.

He puts excitement into the start of the James Bond, no bullshit, no I will win again because it's written in the script. Not like that at all. He makes mistakes, he's cold, observant and funny! But when I say cold I mean ice cold, funny is just laughing out loud funny, etc.

When James Bond encounters an enemy in Casino Royale, he outwits him, not just because it's in the script but because you feel he really is smarter than any opponent.

OK, I'll shut it, when I left the cinema, I was left with the question, Who's Pierce? I can answer that, He's the remnant of old-Bond flicks, it's OK but not great.

Daniel Craig and all others involved have put old-Bond aside and reinvented him, really reinvented. It's just not comparable anymore, it's fresh, exciting!

(I at least was left with a satisfied movie experience) (I've heard some complaints that Casino Royale is a bit too long, it's not, it's exactly right, you get value for money this time)
3/10
Insanely bad
I know it is James bond but at some point there has to be some realism. This isn't a damn superhero movie. The 1st chase sequence was nothing short of asinine.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Quite confusing in places, but possibly the best "Bond" film ever!
chimpanzee_boyuk31 December 2006
I am not an avid fan of the James Bond franchise, so when I went to see the film just before Christmas, I didn't know what to expect. The critics were raving about this film (spearheaded by British celebrity Jonathan Ross) and rightly so.

You could say the whole business about "restarting" the Bond franchise was a good idea; after the masterful Sean Connery left the series, it began to go downhill with every film filled with clichés and very predictable plots (the franchise was saved, possibly, by Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye). It needed a knew start. I was still a bit confused about the character Felix Leiter returning, and the marketing slogan "Bond's first adventure", when I discovered that everything was modern and the film was set in the present day. But the knew Bond (Finally another English Bond!), Daniel Craig is brilliant. He is much more grittier and ruthless than all the other Bond actors put together, who mostly deliver their performances with predictable one-liners and by waving their Walter PPKs around in a "threatening" way without actually using them (the Kate Beckinsale quote "I think if you're going to kill someone, kill them, don't stand there talking about it all day!" {Van Helsing}). He is a very good actor and plays Bond with Gusto (on top of that, I don't agree with, or care about any of the crap the press have made about him). The Bond girl, Eva Green, is okay, with a more reluctant approach towards Bond, and the villain is good (Mads Mikklesen, who should have kept his real name for the character!). Judi Dench delivers an excellent performance as ever.

The plot is admittedly a bit advanced (this could be a good thing however) and you do begin to wonder who is killing who, but if there is one thing that makes this film stand out above all other Bond films (in this case, only matched by Goldeneye) it's the action. The action sequences are first rate! It may stand out above all other Bond films to the point where it isn't actually a Bond film any more, Daniel Craig may have mixed views from the press, and although it isn't my favourite film, it is still a bloody good one. Daniel Craig is certainly the best Bond since Sean Connery, and it could, just possibly, be the best Bond film ever! 8/10.
10/10
Casino Royale666
Thunderstorm20529 November 2006
I would Recommend This movie to everybody because it is action packed and a lot of suspense. So If you can get a night out go see Casino Royale. My Family enjoyed it and so will you. It is one of the best bonds so far. Daniel Craig Is wonderful in this movie and so was Eva Green. Eva Green Was beautiful.I would go see it again and again If I could I can not wait until it comes out on DVD. Daniel Craig Is completely phenomenal and realistic in Casino Royale. The theme song is sung by Chris Cornell. The movie is Rated PG-13 so think about taking your kids.I loved this Movie a lot and I enjoyed it a lot and I think it was a wonderful movie and a definite 10 out 10 ranking.......
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Why The Classic Bond Theme is Missing In This Film (Possible Spoiler)
panavision-18 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Keep in Mind This Film Is Based on the era before James Bond Reached his 007 status became or created his well loved character, this is why the familiar Monty Norman Theme is not heard throughout the film, as James Bond in this film is still developing his personality.

The Only Other Time this storyline happened in earlier Bond Films is in "On Her Majestys Secret Service" (1968) showing George Lazenby Reflecting on his first "007" mission showing Diana Rigg as his lost love.

As CASINO ROYALE (2006) is based on this excerpt that George Lazenby Reflected on before bond developed his attitude and character.

Also The CD Soundtrack to this Film, does not contain the Title Track "you know my name" Written By Chris Cornell complete with the Monty Norman Accompaniment as all the Other Bond Films have, Take "Goldfinger" Shirley Bassy for example.
7/10
Certainly an improvement
pouringpetrolonthefire11 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royale is, without doubt, the best Bond film since Goldeneye 10 years ago. The movie is, on the whole, fast paced, sexy and well-acted. Having seen and liked Daniel Craig in Layer Cake I was pleased to see him fill the role of Bond with such brash arrogance and wanton violence. None of the slimy, lecherous 'charm' of the likes of Moore.

Eva Green is equally impressive as the co-lead. Stunningly beautiful and witty, she is more than a match for Craig. The exchanges between the two lead actors, particularly during the train scene where they first meet, are very entertaining.

The film stays as faithful to the original book as possible in a modern setting, the substitution of Texas Hold 'Em for Baccarat being the most notable change. The film suffers from some of the same problems as the book. Too much focus on the card game itself and a slightly over-complicated plot.

I must admit I liked the ending, and the torture scene was truly gut-wrenching. The cameo from Richard Branson and the featuring of the original 1964 Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger left a broad smile on my face.

Overall, from opening Parkour chase to leg-sniping final shot, this film is a great return to form for the Bond crew and well worth watching.
10/10
bond is back for good!
livealie15 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After seeing Casino Royale in a charity premier earlier this evening i was amazed by how Daniel Craig pulled it off as bond! He is at the kind of level of Sean Connery for his proformance. In the action sequences you really see a determined look on his face. you see a killer. You see the real James Bond that has lacked in films like die another day. This film is so realistic compared to bond films like die another day with the pathetic invisible car! Bond is back and he is going to be around for a long time if they keep making them like this. the way the film ends suggests that the next film in the series will have a strong relation to Casino Royale, but I'm not giving anything away go see it and enjoy Bond the way it should be. if you have any questions regarding Casino Royale e-mail me on livealie@hotmail.co.uk thanks for reading Kirk Truman
3/10
Boring
Black_Red_Wolf3 October 2021
I gave up Bond movies some time ago but I said, what the hell, I have heard some good critics on that one. I was waiting that "something" to intrigue me, the idea that would get me. But sorry, no. Casino royale my a**. That could be an ok episode of an average crime series. The script was full of holes. A huge disappointment.

PS. Kudos to the intro makers.
4 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Ian Fleming would be proud
skalynuik2 December 2006
Before we set out to the Theater to watch Casino Royale we watched the old Peter Sellers, David Niven in Casino Royale. In that David Niven played a uncompromisable James Bond who is disgusted with the namesakes now taking the 007 moniker. This latest James Bond Casino Royale 2006, was a blessing to watch, a non-womanizer, and a take control personality, and a big bonus a person who makes mistakes, these features finally portray a James Bond anyone can watch and enjoy. Thank GOD they got rid of the nude women in the intro as past Bond films have had, and also thank-you someone out there for no sex scenes, only our imagination of what came next, its about time. I believe this to be in my eyes and my wife's eyes "The Best Bond Film to Date" and I can tell you at least 50% of the folks watching at the Theater agree by the comments we heard as they were leaving. I hope this format of Casino Royale takes hold and then Bond will be for anyone to watch in upcoming features.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Worst Bond since "In her Majesty's Secret Service"
jensbr21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
6 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This might qualify as an OK action movie, and even if you liked "The Notebook", you might find passages that you like in this movie. However if you expect the movie to give you the fulfillment that the last Bond movies did, you will be disappointed.

The team behind this movie, tried so hard to renew the franchise, that they lost some of the most valuable trademarks in doing so.

First, the music: For some reason the composer is thinking that the classic John Barry score has worn out. Wrong! The James Bond theme is an integrated part of any James Bond movie, and if the three notes that defines Bond is gone, so is the feeling of Bond himself. The composer chose to wait till 2 hours and 20 minutes into the film before giving us the score, and by that time the movie was (finally) over, so it didn't do much good. Also the Title song to the opening credits is one of the dullest songs in the history of Bond.

SERIOUS SPOILERS AHEAD...

Secondly, Bond had to fall in love again. Like "In Her Majesty's Secret Service" Bond falls in love. This time around he doesn't get married, but like in "Majesty" the girl gets killed. It wasn't a good storyline last time, and it isn't this time. But it does take up way too much time in the movie - and for those who enjoyed this part, I can highly recommend "The Notebook", but this is a Bond movie and is supposed to be something else.

Finally the villain is too weak. This time around he is a simple thief who lost a bet - not a visionary who wants to take over the world. Granted, they do put in a comment about him being responsible for 9/11, but this is just too cheap. We want to see him - almost - accomplishing his crazy plan - launching his rockets from a deserted island or from an ice palace.

They try to make Bond into Bourne - but Bond is not Bourne, and he doesn't become Bourne because they leave out the trademarks of a Bond movie.
8/10
Sneakers for Bond
rose-geiss27 September 2021
Give Bond some cool sneakers! It's about time. All the running, the stunts? In laced leather shoes?
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
At last!
Hardryv25 November 2006
Closing on 40 years of age, it's likely I've seen every Bond movie at least twice... some much more. The Bond series has never been a top shelf production for me, but I've always experienced ample enjoyment from the gadgets, the super-villains and their agendas, and of course the action. I'm confident that's true of most males.

Casino Royale has raised the bar, however, and higher than I ever dreamed I would see it. No offense to any of the prior Bond players (all of whom I cherish in their individual flavors), but Daniel Craig is the gold standard. I can't give all the credit to him, either. The casting was as ambitious as it was excellent. The production and directing efforts were spot on, too. I did think it got a bit slow at the end, and that it was a bit long... but like many others I agree that these were good for the movie as a whole and justifiable.

For me Casino Royale is far and away the best Bond film. In fact, they could remake all the other Bonds with Daniel Craig and the same production standards and I'd gladly pay to see and own each and every one. Bold words from someone who intended to wait until this hit video until a friend dragged me into it.

Spy movies have always been too campy for me to appreciate deeply. If this is the new breed, then I'm all for it.
6/10
Same ol' same ol'
ramesestsarina225 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I had been told that this was the so-called new, improved James Bond, much better than the old James Bond movies et cetera. So I went into this movie with high hopes.

Let's see. Car chases? Check. Foot chases? Check. Shootings? Check. Explosions? Check. Car crashes? Check. Sinister villain plotting to do bad things with wide-ranging consequences? Check. Apparently intelligent female who's brain leaks out of her ears the moment she claps eyes on our hero? Check. Bond sans clothes? Check.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a bad movie. It is a perfectly acceptable and entertaining way to spend two and a quarter hours or so of your time. Craig makes a perfectly good Bond, Mikkelsen a great villain, and Judi Dench is always a pleasure to watch. Production values, effects, and so on are all fine, very polished, very slick. Just don't expect to see anything new. Same old Bond, same old plot.
7/10
Not your old respectful Bond. Watch out for this guy.
ClarkGriswald18 December 2006
As the world's most charismatic secret agent switches faces yet again, some changes are definitely to be expected. Many changes are for the better. For example, the action is unbelievably awesome, leaving everyone with their mouths hanging wide open. The chase scenes will undoubtedly leave you talking about them for days.

There are some negative sides. If you are smart, you begin to catch on to the plot and it may seem a bit predictable. Another downside is the personality of the new Bond. He is an adulterous, egotistical,and reckless jerk. It's hard to think of him as a hero most of the movie, although he does have some redeeming traits.

Don't even try to compare this to the past Bond films. This is a movie all its own. An extremely entertaining guilty pleasure blockbuster. Typical for modern Hollywood, yet clearly original.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The real deal Bond is back...fast forward from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig
lone_jafa25 December 2006
This was awesome. I started out watching the Bond movies with the Roger Moore version of Bond. "Man with the golden gun" was my first 007 flick. Love that car jumping the bridge. Later in life I rented the Sean Connery version. I was blown away with the difference. I actually liked George Lazenby story but not style. Did not really like Dalton, but Brosnan's Bond was boy scout suave - as in, an improvement on Moore's version.

Daniel Craig is a guy who is a spy with a license to kill. It is very believable and he comes off as a guy who you really think will take you down. There is acting (like real acting) and minimal gadgets. It is still very British. MI6. So the essence of Bond is there. More SAS than super spy.

Go see it. Make your own mind up. Wipe away all expectations and previous notions.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Eat Dung,Jason Bourne...
parag1dubey19 January 2007
I will keep it short and to the point....Casino Royale is one of the Best Bond Films o come out in a long time...indeed it is THE BEST MOVIE OF 2006. Now my title may be intriguing to some of you. Let me explain. Some reviewers of the Bourne movies had said that Bourne had blown Bond out of the water. This movie proves how wrong they were. Not that I didn't like the Bourne movies. But I LOVE Bond films.There is no movie franchise which can beat 007. NONE. My comment is biased ,prejudiced , full of vengeance even. But what matters is that it is TRUE as millions will attest worldwide. Craig indeed is the best Bond of all.He has outdone Connery. He plays Bond so well , you never feel for a moment that this guy is acting.His screen presence is memorizing to say the least. His action scenes and is droll humor are TOP NOTCH. I look forward to Bond 22. Welcome Back Mr.Bond...and Eat Dung,Jason Bourne..
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The name is Bond, James Bond.
flores_lorenzo11 December 2006
I have just seen this movie and it is a mind blow.

It's James Bond as should have been long time ago. This is an action-packed movie or should I say a real spy movie where 007 get out of trouble by wit and hand; no artifacts whatsoever.

A well made movie with good photography, a solid plot and answering most of the information about who James Bond is.

I'm looking forward for the DVD release as well as the second movie with Daniel Craig.

If you have listened the soundtrack you know what to expect: explosion and suspense.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"The bitch is dead."
Malteser99918 June 2016
This is one of those few times when I was really hyped up and left the theater with a huge "clown-prince" like smile on my face. Now, let me share my thoughts on how much satisfaction and disappointment it left me.

First I would like to mention was that this is a damn good example of a 3 act story everyone should take notes. Started of as a typical Bond mission, then a suspenseful casino game (I don't gamble) against a genius, then a tragic love story. Nothing more, nothing less.

(Spoiler alert) Let's talk more about the Bond mission. Just from that first chase in Madagascar, I was already immersed of how intense it looked. Even though Bond fell from like 3 story high, he kept on going. Meaning that the 007 character has to get this man down no matter what as it adds the intensity. The camera-work isn't edited as multiple jump cuts like in any action movies, but wide angles (and close ups when necessary).

Aside from ingenious editing, it inverted the Bond formula to a whole new level. Women are displayed as human beings, not horny sex objects (except one scene). There are almost no fancy gadgets like in previous films (the DBS looked sick though). Bond doesn't care how his martini should be served. All of these elements aren't just there to be different for sake, but because Martin Campbell wanted to show to people what a real secret agent would do and the kinds of situations he has to deal with.

I didn't want to touch the gambling act as you might be better off watching the real thing. Trust me, it's one of the best thing ever came out of the Bond franchise.

Last but not least, the tragic love story. To my surprise, it's not cliché and played out like it should. Yet, the betrayal is what molds the Bond character drastically into the person we all recognize.

In conclusion, Casino Rogale is a great movie not just in the entire Bond entry. But also works as a movie that will put everyone a big smile leaving out of the theater, including fans and goers.
Daniel Craig's performance is absolutely brilliant!!
maaartahn17 November 2006
Well, what can one say about the new James Bond film... the opening sequence is rather mystifying, if not baffling, but the imagery (the use of black and white) is fantastic. The opening title sequence then follows in what has to be the best the title sequence I have ever seen, however the song is not that good which is disappointing... The Bond film then starts with high octane stunts, Sebastien Foucan performed his own stunts and it adds that little bit to the film, but to be honest it is disappointing when you find out what it was all for. The storyline is rather shallow and rather confusing and it just prolongs and prolongs (at 145mins its way too long for what it contains) and the ending, well I think is one of the worst in a James Bond film. But, what makes it good is the fantastic acting from Daniel Craig, I always thought he had potential and boy did he show it by adding spice and style like no other bond has done. Finished are the stupid puns and replaced with comical lines (e.g. the torture scene), he alone deserves a 10/10... unfortunately thats not what I can say for the film. Better than Die Another Day, worse than The World Is Not Enough, this film is worth seeing only for Daniel Craig's performance... what Bond 22 needs to make it a good film is a proper storyline, less of the high octane power stunts, the inclusion of Q and a shorter film... I have to give this film 6.5/10
6/10
Good, but lacking...
Ratter25 November 2006
Before I start I would like to make clear that although I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I just felt that something lacked from it.

The film had everything that a James Bond film should have. Action, drama, humour and a James Bond who can act the part properly. Daniel Craig is without any doubt the best James Bond role model since Sean Connery, but in terms of portrayal, is even better.

The only criticism I feel this film should get is about the music. The title music I felt was terrible. Previous James Bond scores have always somehow suited the film, but for some reason this time it didn't. The second criticism is summed up in three words; 'James Bond Theme'. Nowhere throughout the movie (apart from the credits) is the famous John Barry film score used. There are numerous scenes (which I will leave anonymous to prevent spoilers) where this music would have heightened the excitement and improved the scene to such an extent where the film becomes better too.

I remember reading somewhere that Quentin Tarintino had originally shown interest in directing the film and I wonder whether the film would have been better had he been selected. Although I have nothing against Martin Campbell, who I thought did a superb job with the film, I feel that Tarintino would have used his visionary talents well and created the perfect Bond universe.
9/10
Pessimist turned optimist
gograyfirego25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay, I have no problem admitting that I was not happy when I learned that the producers were handing Pierce Brosnan his hat. Then came the news that they were seriously considering Daniel Craig. Who?!?! With those issues in place, I was ready to boycott 'Casino Royale'. Then, as filming commenced, Dame Judi Dench vehemently defended the new casting. And then I saw 'Munich' which starred Daniel Craig. I started to re-think my opinion. I saw the first preview of 'Casino Royale' and I realized it would be worth giving it a chance. And I am so glad I did! This movie is fantastic! I agree with other reviewers that it was refreshing to see more emphasis on the story and not gadgetry and sometimes tongue-in-cheek action. The chase, that includes the crane-jumping sequence, is fantastic and a great introduction for Daniel Craig as Bond. Then it turns right around with a great scene between Bond and M. Dame Judi is so perfect for the role! Though I believe Mr. Craig proved himself early on, I think the "chair" scene clinched it. Ummm, scratching an itch is sometimes necessary but...uhhh. And the ending should definitely secure the fact that Bond is alive and well. Anyway, I hope a lot of people see 'Casino Royale' because I believe they will be well-entertained!
10/10
A review of one of the best Bond films and one of the best action films ever!
Marc109 February 2007
Back in 2003, I was only thirteen. The newest Bond movie at the time was to be Pierce Brosnan's last; Die Another Day was the bestest movie ever in my mind, for the time, at least. It benefited from a second viewing, for any Bond fan would realize it's one of the five worst Bond movies ever. Look at me! I'm Halle Berry: I'm black, I have breastuses, and I am a bad actor in this film! The movie suffered from a ridiculous plot and the likes, and I can't blame Pierce for wanting out. Poor guy was getting' ugly anyway.

Now we have Casino Royale, based on Ian Flemings first Bond book, which just so happens to introduce the man we know so well today. So many fans over the last few months had been crying foul as to the producers decision to pick a rugged, gruff, and blonde actor named Daniel Craig. I can understand how this kinda messes with the formula of the franchise, but judging from his superb performance, it's a welcome departure. Get this folks: he can actually act! Casino Royale starts out right off the bat as different. Instead of a traditional opening sequence where James Bond flies a jet with one hand while having sex with a Russian model and shooting a sniper at a man in a wheelchair on the ground, the film starts in black-and-white. With contrasting shadows and deep camera angles, we learn that this is his first outing for MI6. A man who is obviously a bad guy walks into his office at night, and Bond is sitting there suddenly revealed in the dark. From there it cuts between the scene where he confronts this man and assassinates him with the cool, collective demeanor we've come to expect from this 00 agent, and a different scene shown at the same time where Bond is out of control, literally beating the living hell out of a man in public bathroom, brutally pommeling him with his fists and drowning him in the sink. With the entire pre-title sequence done in black-and-white and with a quiet intensity, the first five minutes bring to mind classic film-noir.

All of Casino Royale replaces regular action movie clichés with something better. Endless action replaced with raging fistfights of calculated fury; a gritty, out-of-control gas tanker chase scene at Miami Airport instead of fancy cars with missiles. There are so many other kickers, too: Bond doesn't yet know (or care) about the difference between "shaken or stirred"; he actually gets tortured by La Chiffre, the villain; Bond is sent to bring down the aforementioned terrorist financier by defeating him in a high-stakes poker game. Even the Bond girls are an extreme improvement over the last dozen or so. Both can act, both expose him more than usual, and he finally falls in love with one of them. By far, this is one of the best James Bond movies of all time.
10/10
Believable Bond
tim-taskaline24 December 2006
Saw it twice to insure my first impressions were correct. I made sure that the viewings were a week apart. This is a Bond that I actually believed could kill someone. Bond is an assassin plain and simple. If you like the book Bond, you will love this movie. If you are more a movie Bond fan, then this Bond will fall short in your eyes. Now that they have done all the books (if not in plot line, in title), it will be interesting to see what story line the writers come up with. I also love the chemistry between Bond and Vesper. It was also nice the way the director told the audience each character's background. It was also gratifying to be able to see some of the events of the book in the movie. I believed the director and writers did an excellent job of taking a book from the 50s and updating it.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Brilliant Bond!!
extreme_salomon0116 November 2006
Firstly I'd like to start off by saying that this James Bond is one of the best ever made!! Anyone who doubted Daniel Craig will change their minds after watching this movie because this is by far his best performance, and gives back the James Bond name in style.

Also Eva Green also produces a great performance, and the on screen chemistry with the Daniel Craig is perfect. They work well together and make the movie as good as it is.

This 007 movie takes a different approach to all the gadgets and gizmo's like the previous Bonds, and goes for more of a realistic outcome.

The story line was also very good as it was in depth and exciting. No boring bits in this movie, and will keep you on the edge of your seat!! A very good movie and the new Bond is here!

Take a bow Daniel Craig!!
8/10
A Bond Flick English Folks Can Be Proud Of?
mobilecontraband15 November 2006
Impressive Offering from an Over-hyped Franchise. I really like this Bond movie for a change. Even though I always succumb to the mega-millions in advertising and pay full admission price to nearly every Bond movie coming out, I've never been the biggest fan of the movie series, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton or Connery. Which made this movie all the more surprising and satisfying.

The plot was strong - even unpredictable (when's the last time you said that about a Bond flick?) and it felt like an original story was developed to be seen specifically in a wide-screen cinema.

This time the characters are far more realistic and believable than the past three Bond movies (better villains, fewer cheese-ball women and lack of standard stereotypes). A few times I looked around at folks and I didn't see very much of that grimacing you normally witness as mind-numbing clichés fly out of bad guys mouths. It seems screenwriters Purvis and Wade were (thankfully) careful to avoid these this time.

And Bond? I really liked Daniel Craig in Layer Cake (less so in Munich) but I truly think he's going to be around quite a while if he can continue his solid (and very unique) portrayal of 007.

8/10.
6/10
Good, but not that good!
cagivaraptor197626 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What are the boys at 007 HQ thinking? I AM ACTUALLY PAINED IN SAYING THIS, but yesterday I made my way to the cinema to see possibly THE most anticipated Bond movie ever, the movie that starts it all, and what did I get?...I got a love story, thats what I got. They go overboard with the mush between Bond and Vesper and I think that most of us got the idea that Bond was smitten with her, pretty much from the moment they met. The iris logo at the beginning looks good, but if you are gonna fiddle with something at least put it where it should be! On a more positive note though Daniel Craig's Bond is excellent and certainly better than Connery's, though he lacks the wit of his predecessors. Eva Green makes an amazing and moody looking Vesper, while Mickleson's Le'Chiffre is one of the sliest bad guy's yet. All in all Casino Royale is a good-ish movie. But I hope that the guys at Columbia take notice and return to formula for the next one, or they will be risking the franchise and turning a generation spanning series of movies into JUST RUN OF THE MILL action flicks.
8/10
James Bond is Back
benjicaunce6 November 2018
11 years after the last good Bond film, Martin Campbell injects new life into the franchise by teaming up with Daniel Craig, the definitive image of this classic British spy and the writer of Million Dollar Baby and Crash to deliver a near-perfect spy thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Its great
xii15315 November 2006
I have just got back from the regional charity premiere of the film and its great.

DC plays the Bond part well in a very edgy way. The humour in the film is not as cheesy as other Bond films but he does a very, very good job. Casino Royale has taken the film to another place its darker, as we all knew it was going to be, but it is done in such a way to make the transition comfortable. All the acting is great with Eva Green doing a good job. The poker scenes are particularly captivating (if you are a poker fan like me). All in all a very good NEW bond film with good acting, intense action and a more realistic approach.

And whoever said "Hugh Jackman to be the next Bond" on a previous thread, have a word with yourself PLEASE!!! Also, Clive Owen, yes he would have made a good Bond, but I am glad he hasn't.

In conclusion if you love films (like me) then watch this you will not be disappointed, if you are a die-hard Bond fan and want cheesy jokes and impossible unrealistic scenarios then don't watch this. Times change and Bond has to, and its breathtaking.

Cheerio Old Boy!
10/10
Well Done Craig!!
Film-Fanatic20052 January 2007
After all the critics that he had Daniel Craig knew the best way to shut them up was to bring out one of the best performances ever seen in a Bond movie! And he did that, his acting was on top form and he pulled of the quirky pun's perfectly! With a brilliant script to help he read from this is an absolute cracking bond film!! 2006 film of the year! We got to see why Bond is the way he is through this movie as we see him fall for a girl instead of have a casual fling with them, we also see him rise to the 007 spot!! Craig accompanied by a great cast of Bond girl Eva Green, Bond baddie Mads Mikkelson and of course the English pride of Judi Dench playin her usual character of M....the relationship between Craig and Dench appears to be one of high respect for each other and they are able to act brilliantly together. Now we have to wait and look forward to the next Bond film and hope Craig remembers the critics he had before this movie and he doesn't get sloppy causing them to come out and hit at him again!.... Brilliant film and im sure he can do it again!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Pretty Good Bond Film, though strayed from the formula somewhat
OriginalSheady19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
As the film passed in the first (roughly) 20 minutes, I was indecisive over whether I liked it, and if it fitted into the Bond family. But, when the film finished, I think it does. However, rather than being a brother to the other Bond films, its more of an estranged cousin. The idea of rebooting the series was confusing to many of the "casual" bond fans, and it strayed quite a bit from the familiarity that is adored by Bond fans. M seemed quite out of character compared to her previous interpretation (the heightened use of "what the hell", e.g. what the hell is going- as well as M actually swearing! lowering the tone a bit), and not a Moneypenny or Q in sight. Very different, and I think you could link it more with the other slightly "outsider" Bond films, such as "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Licence To Kill". Like these, its odd and, like OHMSS, he falls in love- a fatal mistake and, like LTK, he seems more inclined to rebel against the rules and offers his resignation, like LTK.

It was a shame that they didn't include the traditional gun-barrel sequence for the opening, though the black and white was original. The credit sequence was odd, but modern (no silhouettes of women?!?). Couldn't fault the action, more realism than its predecessor, Die Another Day. However, it was as "villainous" as some of the more classic Bond films, in that Le Chiffre, though unique in his poker abilities and bleeding eye, he hasn't exactly got great charisma or a sparkling personality. And, seemingly, gone are the days when you had a good henchman like Oddjob and Jaws. Couldn't fault the locations, other than you could get a bit lost from time to time, and the plot could be confusing at times. The dialogue seemed a bit muffled in my opinion, causing me to miss some points. A very action-packed, serious (on the whole) and more emotive Bond film, with a lot less jokes and gadgets (causing it to lose some of its Bondian appeal in my opinion). Very dramatic too, with Bond dieing from poison, as well as getting thrashing in the balls with a knotted rope. Very wincing moment for the men in the audience! As for Craig, well the website craignotbond.com should close immediately. He looked the part to me, his acting was excellent, and maintained the level of emotion that was needed for this unique Bond story. Couldn't fault him in my opinion. Vesper was very good also, Le Chiffre was well acted- but could have be given more depth. But a pretty good Bond film, and look forward to the next instalment. Next time round, we should be having the Bond we're more accustomed to seeing, hardened up more, a hopefully have a some more jokes, another gadget or two perhaps, and definitely the inclusion of Moneypenny and Q again! They're part of what makes Bond "Bond" as well!
10/10
On Par With Connery And Dalton
bondigirl21 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I took a few hours off from my job (screenplay coverage for a production company) to go see Casino Royale the day it opened. Half of Los Angeles had the same idea. It was a thrill a minute (yes it's long, but I was not bored for a second). I am a fan of Daniel Craig's and was not disappointed. The movie is staggering in its many layers. It has everything except, thankfully, Roger Moore's winking and Pierce Brosnan's self consciousness. I love the line at Casino Royale when Bondis asked if he wants his Martini shaken or stirred and he comes back with "Do I look like I give a damn?" It would have been funnier if he hadn't been so specific about how he wanted his Martini just a few minutes before at the poker game. Still, the dialogue crackles and the key sequences are riveting. The US media has been making a big deal of Craig's "ndue" scene. I'm astonished that they don't mention he is being tortured in a fairly realistic, prolonged session by Le Chiffre at the time. They go nuts (no pun intended) here if you show a naked man's thigh (that's the extent of the nudity) but don't bat an eyelid at extreme violence. Le Chiffre is a great villain - all the more chilling because he is real and not cartoonish. The girls are beautiful - so what's new! With the long "free running" sequence at the beginning and the emphasis of substance over style, James Bond has been resurrected from the abyss. And not a moment too soon.
10/10
The Best Bond?
kosciosco18 November 2006
So is this the best Bond yet? Well, it is certainly the best bond that we have seen in the last 20 - 30 years.

This is getting back to Ian Fleming's Bond, it has more in common with Connery's Bond of Dr No.

It is brilliant, the story is believable and well told, but it is the style, much more gritty, that really make this one of best Bond films in the series.

And I thought Daniel Craig wasn't right for the part, well I eat my words and whole-heartedly apologise to him and the producers, they proved me and the many others who thought the same, totally wrong.

Go see this film, you won't regret it
8/10
Vodka Martina - I don't give a dam
info-1081916 November 2006
Well guys after following bond all of my 23 years I thought I would give you my experienced view on the film.

1. Daniel Craig as a Bond is superb the word that comes to mind is quite simply Different ! He has the anger and mean element. One criticism is perhaps something different could be done with his hair.

2. The narrative, well as a bond fan I can see where the director and producers have tried to take this film. It brings back memories of OHMSS and FRWL, Venice and falling in love. Also Dr No and thunder ball in Nassau. But in the middle of the film when bond is rescued from torture the film seems lost. I had a feeling of is that it.

3. "The action" I know there has been a real effort to take bond away from the set piece gadget action sequences but why ? Is it really needed ? I feel if the next bond film contains the same hard edged action sequences then audience will sooner get tiered of this than the previous tried and tested methods.

4. "Bad Guys" This really is the weak point to the film I know the world has changed and terrorism is the No1 risk factor and terrorists are not usually the gold-fingers or Stromberg's of this world. But the lack of the main set piece battle. Plus low threat to the world doesn't seem substantial enough. The guy bond kills at the end loses his gravitas and I was felt with a real feeling of unfinished business at the end. A bad guy that last through a good number of films like blofelt is sadly missing.

"the girls" - Although a natural beauty I wouldn't see vesper as the most beautiful bond girl. If anything Le chief's lady seemed like she would have more to give in the bedroom department.

Solve this quite simply buy dumping per vis and wade. If the producers wanted to have a new direction a new set of writers would have been an excellent way of doing this.

All in all I feel the next film for Craig will be the real test of his metal. But in comparison with other first bond films for actors - Dr No, On her Majesty's secret service, live and let die, the living daylights and golden eye. I would place casino Royal third place behind Goldeneye and OHMSS.

All in all well done team but especially Daniel Craig ! One factor to think about if you are about to watch Casino Royal is it reminded me of Licence to kill quite a lot I hope this isn't reflected in the box office figure as we need Bond to continue and I am sure James bond will return.
10/10
Best action movie
alexmircea-0603117 December 2021
The movie has a good story...and some quality action scenes..worth watching.

The story with the casino and the location are breathtaking.

I never see Munte Negru like that..looks real good.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It would have been a great film if it didn't have the title "007"
sebiche_fever10 April 2007
It was a pretty good movie. But James Bond was much too mortal in this film. The guy bled. The guy got wounds. The guys hair got messed up! It was a good film. But it wasn't a Bond film. I don't go to Bond films to watch a person shoot and get shot. I go to watch a superhuman person called James Bond shoot everybody, land without a scratch (and with his hair and suit in perfect order) so he can get up an get the girl.

James Bond isn't supposed to get shot (he isn't supposed to be blonde either, but hey). He is supposed to be perfect. A true man's man. The guy that can pilot a helicopter, shoot an AK-47 and serve a glass of champagne all at the same time. The guy is supposed to be immortal. He is the man who faced the Cubans, the terrorists, the Soviets and a slew of villains without aging.

But in this film? He shows vulnerability. He shows that he is not the superhuman slick secret agent preforming for her Majesty's' secret service. He becomes another agent who is simply a man trying to make ends meat by killing and getting beaten.

Alas, it would have been a great film if it hadn't been a Bond film. The man's got a reputation to live up to and this time he didn't. Still it is recommended if your looking for a good action movie.
9/10
Don't wait for the DVD
blazinbucks17 November 2006
I went to see Casino Royale last night and ohmigosh is it good. The stunts are just out of this world and simply must be seen on the big screen.

You know, I saw L4yer Cake earlier this year, and when I found out that's the guy they got to play Bond I thought surely they'd lost their minds. I mean, I could see Daniel Craig as the "action" Bond maybe, but the "suave" Bond? Well, he pulls both off with flying colors.

And it's about time someone told the truth about Bond - he's not so much international man of mystery, he has a license to kill. He's an assassin. A killer. It takes a certain psychosis to pull that off, and this film FINALLY shows that. Thankyouverymuch. I guess we had to be in a post-911 world to get there, though. All those handsome, screen-perfect faces weren't tortured souls (well, maybe Connery) like Craig. He has some growing to do, growing into the role, I mean, but what an amazing first lap! Oh, and the opening action sequence is beautiful. Classic and classy and foreshadowing and just a thing of beauty to watch. I feel the movie ran about 15 minutes too long, but in discussion with my film partner, we couldn't find but 3 or 4 minutes to cut effectively.
9/10
Casino Royale
sophs12345678927 November 2006
I am a 13 year old girl who has great love of fluffy chick flicks, LOL comedies and hardcore horrors, so when my Dad requested I go to the cinema to watch it, I was WAY unsure. But since I had not much better to do, I tagged along. Anyway, when we got into the opening scene, I was LOVING it! This movie has a pretty much all star cast, a snazzy theme tune, loadza great stunts, good camera angles and bucket loads of suspense. There were times I was on the edge of my seat, biting my nails, and once where I really needed the loo but was too scared I'd miss anything. There is even a bit of comedy thrown in from time to time.

Overall, a very modern update, and I hate to admit it, but Daniel Craig is quite cute. In an old man way.

So all you lovers of the oldies and the classics, give this one chance, and I guarantee you'll like it.
10/10
This is Bond . . . Have No Fear
detouron17 November 2006
Many 'critics' have stated that although this film takes Bond in a different direction it still retains many of the franchise's trademarks (the locations; the girls; the action scenes) and while this is true to a degree, on the whole it utilises these elements in a more innovative manner than the other films. What makes Casino Royale so good and refreshing is that it is truly a Bond film, it is more about Bond as a character, as a spy, a killer, a human being, than it is about action and flash. All of this is still present, do not worry, and it is harder and more brutal than before, at times breathtakingly risky. I did not feel that one action scene was superior to another but rather that they flowed together and worked well in their respective parts of the film.

I never doubted that Daniel Craig would make a superb Bond and was very pleased when he was selected. He is the essence of Bond, charming, tough, volatile and conflicted. Not only representing Fleming's conception of the man but also epitomising many of the problems that confront him in a precarious world where he could be killed and may have to kill at any given moment. Craig shows Bond to be a man, in my opinion, who is well aware of the fact that he is working for an organisation fully prepared to deny his existence if he makes a serious mistake. This is an actor who embodies that quality so often erroneously attributed to lesser performers: presence. Yes, he looks impressive, easily capable of serious harm, but, more importantly, he is always in the moment, reflecting and reacting to the danger of the situation, from the relentless fights and chases through the Madagascan construction site to the many hands of Texas hold'em with Le Chiffre.

Mads Mikkelsen also deserves recognition for his performance as Le Chiffre. He plays the role as a villain losing face and losing confidence, which drives him to intensifying levels of cruelty in his dealings with Bond, but, at least, you understand what his motives are. He is as much at the mercy of his masters as Bond is and so they both stand to lose a great deal if they are not successful. The fact that Bond is dispatched to catch Le Chiffre for intelligence purposes rather than kill him adds to the tension between the two.

The makers of the film have done a fine job of retaining enough of the franchise's overall feeling while bringing something incredibly fresh to the table; stylistically it has elements from the Connery and Brosnan films, blending panache and spectacle. It is a film in which Bond develops and changes as a consequence of what he experiences and endures, he does not merely shrug off the ferocity of the fights and the deadly intent of his foes, it shakes him up and he learns from it. The writers and Craig take Bond seriously and yet, for my money, he has some of the funniest lines of any Bond, which don't rely on innuendo, representing more of a gallows humour than anything else. One line in particular got genuine belly laughs from the audience because it was so unexpected and yet brilliantly defiant.

My apologies if this seems like an exceptionally vague review but I'm sure you all know about the plot (and it's holes, no doubt) and how stripped back the film is – no Moneypenny, no Q, functional rather than outlandish gadgets, but you still get Judy Dench as brilliant as ever. It might be one of the longest running Bond films but it feels very trim where it counts. Even the title sequence has been re-conceived, although it still has that film-within-a-film feel, placing Bond at its centre and it goes very well with Chris Cornell's "You Know My Name".

The 10 rating I have given this is relative to the other Bond films, this one feels authentic, bringing out what Bond is really about. The main draw for the picture is Craig, who is flawless. I often wondered what the naysayers were looking for (I have a lot of time on my hands), whatever it was it always seemed profoundly superficial, which Craig's Bond, for all his muscle, most certainly is not. Craig is Bond. It's that simple. I also think that Casino Royale has more of a 'proper film' quality to it than some of the previous entries. As much as I enjoyed them, this one is more fluid.

The most important thing you get from Casino Royale is Bond, a superb Bond, an exemplary Bond, and that, after all, is what a Bond film should deliver: BOND.

I think I missed out a Bond somewhere.
6/10
Bond Goes Dark
cbhunter4 January 2022
If you prefer 007 as a dark brooding super spy, that lacks even the slightest bit of a sense of humor, and one without too much charm or charisma, then this is your Bond. The plot is a slow burn that never fully pays off but the elements that make the franchise familiar are mostly present albeit muted. Good set pieces and stunt sequences accentuated by the great score keep this one watchable. If you are similar to me, a James Bond guy who came in on Sean Connery's last film, then this review is for you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the better Bond films.
majikman0127 November 2006
Had the opportunity to see 007 in action yesterday afternoon and we were very pleased. Daniel Craig proved to be a good Bond.

Casino Royale as done by EON Productions was excellent. They stayed fairly close to the book (although I haven't read it in a long, long time). I thought it was interesting that the card game played was Texas Hold'em instead of Baccarat; as in the book, but I guess that a lot more people could relate to poker.

I also thought they did a good job showing how Bond became Bond through the course of the movie. The women were hot (as usual) and the villain Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) was excellent.

I also thought they did a great job on the opening credits, which had a very 60's kind of feel to it.

And a great job of tidying the loose ends of: "Bond, James Bond," "shaken not stirred" and the Monty Norman; Bond theme to the entire genre.

Overall, I have to give the film a big thumbs up.
8/10
A new Bond for a new age
mightyfastpig13 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After the derivative mess that was "Die Another Day", whoever runs the Bond movie franchise decided to start over from scratch. For the most part they succeed.

Although you can't go too deeply into Bond's character by the nature of this story, "Casino Royale" gives an idea of who Bond is and why he acts the way he does. They turn his character inside out. Instead of a aesthete who's learned to be an ass-kicker, he's now an ass-kicker who's learned to be an aesthete. This adds an element of class-conflict to his character: Bond wasn't born to the elegant world he inhabits, and he resents it when people notice.

This dichotomy is reflected in the film itself. The beautiful locations where tuxedo-clad men playing poker for millions of dollars is just the surface. There's always potential violence lurking just beneath. Bond barely survives being poisoned and a battle with African guerrillas, then pulls himself together and goes back for another round of cards like nothing happened. To survive in that kind of world, you have to disconnect from yourself.

This was directed by the guy who also directed "Goldeneye", the best of the Brosnan-era films. There's some nice innovations to the Bond formula. Instead of the Q-gives-Bond-his-gadgets scene, there's now a whole team of wonks and techies back at HQ supporting him. Instead of sailing off into the sunset with the Bond girl, the film ends with Bond capturing the guy who's at the top of the terror-money food chain. It adds an exciting degree of unpredictability.

If they can keep this up, this franchise has life in it yet.
10/10
James Bond rules on the big screen once again
megamart914 January 2007
To be honest I did not really know what to expect from this movie. Sure, the reviews were positive, but there is a new Bond, and that is always something to get used to.

The movie starts with a mysterious intro; then the opening song (by Chris Cornell, love it) and the opening scene. From that moment to the last scene I was amazed by this whole movie. First of all, this movie has a Hollywood quality, without losing the true James Bond Spirit. I have only seen that in the movies where Sean Connery appeared. And yet, Movies like Thunderball and Goldfinger could never match this one.

Daniel Craig is awesome. He looks great, has a kind of coolness in him and his stunts and acting are just beautiful. And if I may say so: He is the best bond ever.

And therefor, this movie is the best bond movie ever, no doubt. It's fresh, cool, lots of action and all the things a real Bond movie needs.

9/10
8/10
Campbells soup
s_garrad19 November 2021
Green, Mads Mikkelsen, Judi Dench, Jeffrey Wright, Giancarlo Giannini, Caterina Murino, Simon Abkarian, Isaach De Bankole, Jesper Christensen, Ivana Milicevic, Sebastien Foucan. Brilliant jump-start to the James Bond franchise by re-booting to the beginning in the first of the Ian Fleming stories with a new Bond (Craig, perhaps the best actor as 007) gaining his license to kill on his first assignment to stop an international banker (baddie Mikkelsen) from bankrolling a high-stakes poker game to continue lending support to global terrorism, with hottie financial analyst Green (perhaps the best Bond babe to date to boot!) in tow. Handled with great aplomb by director Martin Campbell (no slouch to the series with his intro of Pierce Brosnan in "GoldenEye") who skillfully keeps the action riveting (the opening foot chase is a real hoot), the editing snappy (kudos to Stuart Baird) and the storyline from sagging (the screenplay by Neal Purvis & Robert Wade and Paul Haggis bogs things down in the extraneous card game) with enough humor, death-defying gags and mostly for having faith in Craig, who brings a Steve McQueen, craggy handsomeness and under his well-chiseled physique a surprising lethal weapon: a heart. Can't wait for the next!
1/10
stupid, plain stupid and disappointing
drastik2 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
this is the lousiest James Bond movie ever. there is no plot, there is no respect for the series, there is nothing good to remember. the producers of this movie have done a really good job in not having at all a James Bond movie, because: -there is no master enemy of the world peace -there is no plot to completely annihilate the planet -james bond is a violent dude that does only what he wants -james bond knows the password of M's laptop. and her address. even if he has just been promoted to "00" -james bond is a lousy poker player that has luck at the final battle -the movie is about a $100.000.000 Texas Hold'em poker game -james bond drives a Ford Mondeo (wow, how crappy can you go?)

a big Booooooo!
10/10
No expectation when I saw it
GennaJourney19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I watched Bond when I was a small child. I thought it was bland. I saw it with different actors playing the part. I even watched it just to see how Halle Berry was treated. I was never taken off my feet. I never thought twice about willingly seeing a Bond movie twice. I was wholly unimpressed.

30 years later, I can honestly saw WOW! The producers, directors, editors and writers worked feverishly on this. It shows. It is excellent.

Before the nightmare that XXX: State of the Union presented itself, I thought the Bond series was limping into oblivion. I saw XXX with them symbolically killing off Bond (suit and tie wearer), the Bourne Identity series making it known that a thinking agent-assassin is required, and some of the other franchises declaring Bond has to be over. I just figured the people who owned Bond just expected to Bond to make money no matter what kind of crap they forced together as plot or as acting.

Not true anymore.

I sat through this movie twice. I relished the nuances and immersed myself in the delightful story telling.

The weaker and flawed Bond was the more anxious I became. I didn't know if he was going to come apart at the seams. He felt each blow in a fight. He got bloodied. He made mistakes. He was beautiful.

Craig acted his ass off. He flinched. He exuded raw heat. His body language was right on point.

I didn't pay attention to the hype. I saw an interview Craig did on Charlie Rose, decided I needed to go see the movie. I saw Craig in Layer Cake and thought there had to be some heft to Bond by his mere presence. I was not disappointed.

The only crack I'd make on the movie is the love story between Bond and his love interest. I saw a lot of give and take with Vesper Lind, but I didn't see the depths required to make Bond do unBond like things: quit the profession, run away with her, or give her control over the $$$. The psychological profile they brought to bear in Casino Royale would indicate he'd go the exact other way. The actress playing Vesper was exceptional but the exchange between the two did not create the kind of chemistry that would change a dedicated, sacrificing agent to a quitter.

I suggest for the next Bond movie, the writers or directors hire a intuitive profiler, practiced therapist, or learned student of human nature. Anyone of these professionals will be able to tell you what kind of trait needs to exist in a career-minded, self flagellating martyr before he denies the one thing that gives his life meaning. The profile the writers gave lead us to believe he would give up what he is certain of for what is unknown. He was too careful to do that.
1/10
You've Got To Be Kidding
kmiller1227 November 2008
Terrible movie, worst yet, not a real Bond quality actor. Worst of all so far. He is a terrible Bond. Makes a better Inspector Gadget. Not a good scenery direction in my opinion. Have seen better action shots in Disney movies. Main character is just not Bond and needs to be replaced. This remake is not as good as the first and it was not good either. I remember when we were enchanted by good Bond characterizations and better times at the drive-in picture shows entertained by the best Bonds of ever. Wonder what happened to the magic of Bond? Nothing can replace the real actors doing Bond characterization. Go back to real Bond "men" that make the series believable, real and entertaining. Plain talk, the movie sucks.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Who act the banker to deliver the $$ transaction in the end at hospital
knightrider-9014826 November 2020
There is no cast listing for who act the banker who received the deposit before the card game & the wining $$ deliver to transfer in the hospital to key in the password Vesper! If I recognize it correctly is actor David Schneider.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Over rated
stevenyhtyeh2 October 2021
The villain is lame. He is just a gambling addict who try to pay the debt.

I dont understand why they choose to bomb an empty plane instead of a one full of passengers.

Not a very enjoyable 2 hours experience.

If the high rating was based on nostalgic sentiment, then it is nothing but another reboot series to make money.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Reinvented And Brilliant
Deadpool-Apple26 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The moment Casino Royale starts playing you get a tingling feeling. A feeling that this movie is special. It is.

This movie reinvents everything about Bond. There's no car chase, but there is no need. The movie starts in top gear and never slows down for a minute. The action scenes are amazing and and visually stunning. The locations are perfect, along with the actors and actresses stunning performances. When the tense casino scenes are being acted out, you forget you are only watching it, and feel as if you are actually there. There is no Q or Moneypenny, but there is no need for them. The action goes along perfectly without them.

Although there are many questions and lose ends that are untied, Bond is back. And better than ever.
8/10
A great film; a good Bond film.
smokyjoe12326 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I can understand that many die-hard Bond fans may not enjoy this perhaps as much as the previous ones. But it is an excellent film nonetheless, and i think it's an excellent Bond film. It's got everything a bond film needs:

-Bond girls - Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is the hottest thing alive. no exceptions. -Cars - the A.M of course. -Action - the chase and fighting is second to none.

But not only that, there is such magnificent wit that made me laugh out loud literally - Along with most others in the cinema.Anyone that says this has no humour in it was clearly not watching the same film i was. It does indeed differ in style and theme from the last film, but it takes Bond in a slightly new direction for once. And i find it refreshing to say the least. The opening grimy black and white perfectly reflects Ian Fleming's 1950's depiction of Bond's world. then we're met with jaw dropping chase scenes to bring us into the present.

I suggest you give this a chance. Even you don't take it as a Bond film and on it's own merits, it's still a brilliant ride.
9/10
A New Generation of Bond...
JC_SpunkMonkey7 January 2007
I myself held much apprehension for the future of the Bond series when it was revealed Daniel Craig was to be the new Bond. For me Pierce Brosnan encapsulated all that was Bond, having grown up with him in the role; the two characters were as different as i could possibly imagine, even down to a simple thing like hair colour. I don't even think to say that depending on how Casino Royale turned out, the complete series could have been dead. Especially since the most recent movies (since golden eye at least) had lacked flair and a descent story, something they had tried to cover up with exaggerated plots and futuristic pieces of kit.

That is where the new movie re-invented itself. They had replaced a common face figure, Brosnan, with a relatively unknown - something I now consider to be have a stroke of genius. To continue its success the series needed to change something which had become lacklustre, and by bringing in Craig they gave themselves a completely clean slate on which to work. From this they got back to basics and gave the film what the recent ones lacked, starting with a magnificent story line. It grips you for the entirety of the two hours it lasts, I didn't switch off once to consider visiting the toilet once, or even notice that thanks to my slanted posture the sensation in my bum had gone. This class shows even through to the ending, whereby they have replaced the token 'They snuggle alone in paradise' ending (which I must say had become rather, well cheesy) with something that tugs at your heart strings and leaves you wanting to know whats next. On top of this they have developed action scenes that genuinely thrill you. They do this all without the need for futuristic cars, or arctic car chases, this is all replaced by Daniel Craigs finesse and energy. The first action scene, which I won't spoil, uses the basic idea of a chase and develops it into something much more, with stunts however exaggerated, you really believe Daniel Craig is capable of. This, together with the addition of believable enemies, a great array of 'Bond Girls', and inspired direction by Martin Campbell, brings the viewer a refreshing and tasteful action thriller that really impresses. The only down side I can see in this film is that the ending does feel slightly prolonged, but I can understand why it was done so. I urge anyone that hasn't already done so to watch this film, even if you aren't a fan of the previous Bond series, since it really is a true development on what was a dwindling era. Even from the opening screen with the black and white introduction to our new Bond, and the suave animation that follows, you know that something has changed.

In conclusion there is not much else I can say about this film, besides that the fact that it even manages to turn what was a 48hr poker game, into scenes of genuine excitement and tension that leave you on tender hooks. As each hand advances you really can feel the emotion that rushes through Craig, and even come to mistake it for your own...this alone pays the film all the tribute it needs.

Jacoshever
10/10
Bond is back - and he's a bad ass...
scuds117 November 2006
I never believed any other actor could step into Sean Connery's tailored shoes but Daniel Craig may just be the man for the job. Hard, deadly and totally believable as Bond, here's how it should be done. Crushingly violent yet impossibly eloquent, Craig is James Bond.

Film wise the whole outing was just about perfect - for newbies to the Bond genre this film gives you a proper feel for Fleming's hero. For the fans this is pure adrenaline filled spyware. My only gripe is some very clumsy product placement. Apart from that, well paced, well acted and just 'well 'ard'. I'm still humming the theme and pulling imaginary pistols out of my jacket and can't wait for the next one.

The names Craig. Daniel Craig...
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond has a long history to live up to, and Casino Royale does so admirably
robhastings10002 January 2007
When asked if he wants his Vodka Martini to be shaken or stirred, we hardly expect James Bond to reply 'Does it look like I give a damn?' Prior to the release of Casino Royale much had been made of the expectation that Craig's Bond would be a more physical, more cynical, and much colder character. But did we ever expect the man who once regretted not spotting a villain for his ignorance of the rule of only having white wine with fish to have such disregard to his tipple of choice? Yes, this incarnation of Bond really is different, and the world around him has changed as well. The black and white film of the pre-credits scene is not the only reflection of noir in the most violent of the franchise yet (with the possible exception of Licence To Kill, still the only Bond film to break into the 15-certificate territory). Gone, for the most part, are the gadgets; something that is probably a blessing following on from the appalling idea to kit Bond with an invisible car – I mean, come on! – in Die Another Day. And perhaps best of all, Casino Royale actually tries to engage our emotions a bit more than the days of old. Say the words 'shower scene' with regard to Bond, and a repeat of the soapy but oh-so-clichéd shower sex of the finale of A View To A Kill come to mind. In Casino Royale, Bond finds his girl sitting in the shower sobbing at the murders she has just witnessed Bond commit. Normally this would provoke Bond to either give her a bit of a slap and tell her to pull herself together, or pick her up and tell her everything will be OK. Instead, he simply sits down with her in silence, and simply provides a shoulder to cry on, literally, perhaps the most tender, bittersweet moment in Bond history. The acting of Craig and Green here is good enough to grace any film.

Some things are still the same of course, particularly the villain's tears of blood, which match the traditional trend for physical abnormality in Bond's nemeses. Blofeld not only entered Bond's world with that horrific scar, but by the time he finally exited (being rather ridiculously dropped from a helicopter down a factory chimney in For Your Eyes Only) he was also wheelchair-bound; Scaramanga had that famous third nipple; and rumours abound that the reason Goldfinger needed such a big laser was that he needed to compensate for his lack of trouser-filling ability. Daniel Craig would seem to have no such worries of course, as while we're on the subject of Bond below the waist, we should recognise that the honour falls to Craig of being the first Bond to be told that he has a 'perfectly-formed arse.' Oooooh matron.

Is all this change for the good? Well, apart from the sad lack of traditional Bond theme music appearing in the main body of the film itself, yes – because the action is as good as ever (despite the surprising lack of a grand finale battle sequence of the scale we have become used to), and because Die Another Day really was that bad.

In that now seemingly long-ago childhood, before I cared about cricket, football or music, all I really cared about for any length of time were aeroplanes and Bond films. And if I want to indulge again in those days of kiddy-geekness, to be able to do in with something exuding style AND substance in such amounts as Casino Royale makes for happy reminiscing.
8/10
a re-energised franchise
goodeve622 April 2007
Prior to this films release the furore, regarding the choice of actor to play James bond was verging on hysteria. People said that Daniel Craig would ruin the part and one of the more bizarre statements was that he couldn't possibly play bond because he was blonde. Everybody was wrong. Craig is a superb actor who brought depth and a sense of reality to the role. Casino royal is a fantastic adventure and the choice to show the violence in such a graphic realistic manor was a master stroke, as previous bonds, particularly Roger Moore have become a pastiche of them selves, reducing Bond to a cartoon like character. Daniel Craig's ability to show a weakness and vulnerability in Bonds character was a revelation, along with the blood and snot produced from the realistic fight scenes he played the role in a more vesicle manor, one could almost collude in his gasping of breath and pain during the torture scenes. Bond has now entered the noughties but I feel Ian Fleming would not be displeased with this depiction of his character. The overall pace of the film was excellent, the female protagonist was suitably played by Eva Green but she was perhaps a little too self sacrificing in her demise. To reiterate this 'kiss of life' to a franchise that could have easily shuffled off into B movie oblivion. Daniel Craig has re-energised the franchise and we can only look forward to future instalments.
9/10
'Why I love Broccoli'
rickylloyd_george19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
'Casino Royale' beat all past Bond opening day records with £1.7 million in the UK, and looks set to make $40 million in its first weekend. Wasn't this the Bond film that had alienated its core audiences with an unusual choice as Britain's most renowned spy, a man who broke his tooth on the first day of shooting, and couldn't drive his Aston Martin because he didn't know how to drive stick? Hadn't the producers controversially dropped the traditional formula for a more 'emotional story,' the film whose production inspired a website called craignotbond.com? Why is it then that audiences still flock to see these films, which have been running practically non-stop since 'Dr No' in 1962? Are we franchise obsessed?

The answer is no.The remarkable thing about 'Casino Royale' is not only that it's the twenty- first Bond film, but that it marks the strongest entry into the series not just since 1964's high-point 'Goldfinger,' but perhaps ever. And that is principally because it is completely different to what has gone before. It is a true reinvention. After 2002's 'Die Another Day' took the series record of $160 million at the box office, long-time series producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson decided to take a huge and seemingly unnecessary risk and recast the popular and suave Pierce Brosnan with the craggy-looking Liverpudlian art-house actor Daniel Craig, and completely revamp the series. For any Hollywood producer, this sort of risk reveals remarkable creativity and loyalty to its source material, which had seemed to be so outdated it barely influenced the character; a remarkable trait, especially one for the producers of a franchise that has grossed nearly $1.2 billion to date, the largest franchise gross in history, second only to a certain space saga which has hopefully endured its last 'prequel.'

With 'Casino Royale' the producers allow a change in the character of James Bond, by showing his roots. Revived again by Martin Campbell, this film has an identity of its own. Bond is a tough policeman, in the scruffy rags to riches tale of a man who doesn't know how he likes his martinis, sleeps with married women, and needs a stiff drink to stabilize his nerves because the threats are real and terrifying. For the first time in a James Bond film, we genuinely fear for our heroes' life. In a scene where he is poisoned during a poker match, he desperately lunges towards his car for the antidote, and the camera sways with him, the light in the bathroom overexposed and blurry, mirroring his own confused delirium. In the Roger Moore era, he would have simply raised a single wry eyebrow as he fell into the arms of the femme fatale, only to wake up in white linen in the villain's paradise lair the next morning. Here he is on his own, desperate to save himself using a mobile electric pulse unit from his collection of gadgets. Gone is Q, and 'Casino Royale's' gadgets aren't laser-cutting wristwatches or explosive pens, but simply life-saving medical devices. This is the first fully adult Bond film. Aside from the fact that he is blond, shorter, and for the first time a rookie within M16, this is the first time since 'From Russia With Love' that a Bond film that can be called purely a thriller. The Fleming stories were obviously written as such, and yet when they were passed to celluloid, they somehow transformed into action-adventure fantasies. There were thrilling elements, but the principal mood, as demonstrated by the exciting and operatic John Barry orchestra, was always one of excitement and action, rather than nail- biting tension and thrills. In 'Casino Royale,' Bond is fragile and human, and we feel his pain. The familiar guitar riff doesn't even play until the closing credits. When Monty Norman's theme tune strikes up and we hear those immortal lines at the end of 'Casino Royale,' it's like we're both seeing an old friend and meeting him for the first time.

Broccoli and Wilson have once again shown insight into the character that they have both grown up with, (Barbara Broccoli is the late Albert 'Cubby' Broccoli's daughter, Wilson his stepson, both were involved in the films in their youth) and remarkable creative drive to keep him alive and fresh, and all they had to do was go back to Fleming's first book. 'Casino Royale' reaches the furthest emotionally. Craig's Bond bleeds and suffers tragedy, and at the end of the film, we understand why he's the cold-hearted bastard we know and love. Craig has signed on for at least two more film, and so long as the writers continue in this vein in his next outings, we will see a Bond who undergoes a journey throughout his films, learning and changing as he goes. This reinvention could see the most powerful and ferocious Bond to date. Bond, it seems, has something to offer every era. At the end of the day, its success falls largely to his nurturing and loving producers; a true 'Hollywood family.' Sit up and take note, Hollywood producers, and see how you keep a franchise alive; especially you, Mr. Lucas, because this is how you make a real prequel. 'James Bond will return,' as those final titles remind us again and again, and personally, I can't wait.
I can't believe it...
pinkzep19 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How the hell did this movie get that rating? It's sick.

I am a professional poker player, and I just have to say (although it's probably been said before) that the poker aspects of this movie is hilarious. I've played millions of hands, and never been in a situations with 3 full houses and one straight flush, they play like 20 hands an hour at a live table, it's totally ridiculous. Also the rebuys and stack amounts are totally off.. and how the hell does he call a 40 million 3-bet raise all in on the river with anything else than the nuts? so idiotic.. damn And why the hell does they make bond a beefcake guy that shaves his chest, acts gay and tells the girl he loves her (!), quits his job, gets his nuts smashed, get's saved by other time after time. it's just not bond-style.

absolutely no flow in this movie, really crappy...

stop voting 10.
8/10
Breaking out of the pattern
Turbotape22 April 2007
Some people criticize Casino Royale for not being the typical James Bond. No gadgets, no stereotyped Bond-babes, no Q, no comic book villains... Well, in my opinion, that's why this film is so good.

Over the past years I've grew tired of the James Bond series. For each new film I've hoped that this time it will offer something new, but every time it's just the same old routine. The last one with Pierce Brosnan I didn't even bother to watch.

Now, finally James Bond has managed to renew itself, and it's a long awaited fresh breath. He's become more human (but not too much), he's more vulnerable, thus giving the action scenes a stronger edge – it actually makes him thougher than ever.

If you've felt that James Bond needs a little refurbishing, I think you'll like this one. If not, brace yourself...
10/10
Top 5
renge9 January 2007
I went to see this movie without any expectations. The last 20 years the Bont movies have been so bad I can't believe it.

But this movie is one of the best ever, and Daniel Craig does a great work being Bond. My favorite will always be Connery, but my second favorite is now Craig.

This movie has action, excitement, a good scrip and a brand new kick-ass Bond! I just love it..! Craig is more powerful as bond, he has the fysics and the brain, he looks kind of scary. It's not like the other fellas who looks more avirage, only Connery could pull that off. I think this movie is a 10/10, and I hope the next one is as good, if not better!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Watch again now after 10 years. Observe the brilliance.
prashanth-rp9 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What makes a great movie ?

-- A complex story plot which is made simple. A story plot where you see more dimensions every time you watch it.

-- A movie in which ever scene and dialogue are necessary. It makes you think and makes you emotional. You think there is an underlying message. But may be there isn't. It leaves a lot to your imagination, like art.

-- If its of 'action', 'thriller' genre, it should move you to the edge of you seat. But at the same time the action needs to directly contribute to the intensity of the plot.

-- The characters need to be consistent and deep. A caste which truly plays these characters naturally.

-- Visual effects, screen play, background scoring , opening and ending sequences which all blend to make ONE beautiful piece.

CASINO ROYALE has all these, and is a yard stick for movies of its genre. (Spoilers below).

-- Did you observe how the old 007 is fired and new one is appointed at the beginning, presenting a breath taking restart of the franchise.

-- Did you observe the intense action scene with the subtle conversation in black and white in the beginning ?

-- Did you observe the bullet in the 'barrel shot' at the beginning is used for Bond's first kill and the screen goes colour from then ?

-- Did you observe how bond is not cheesy as usual but a sociopath with trust issues ?

-- Did you observe how a 007 agent is sent to play cards as opposed to stop a nuclear missile for example ? ironically playing cards almost kills him 3 or 4 times.

-- Did you observe how the ONLY person he finally trusts cheats but actually loves him ?

-- Did you observe that when bond almost dies due to a malfunctioning defibrillator, he comes back to life and asks the girl "are you OK" ?

-- Did you observe the bond cars , suites and gadgets ?

-- Did you observe I can go on for another 1,000 lines ?

If not go watch it and observe this time. You will love it !
9/10
Is the new Bond worth it? "Every Penny of it!"
rydave25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
For a start, let me say that when Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond I was horrified, and agreed with the headline "James Bland". However, having seen the film, i can say i am incredibly impressed by his performance, and thought him fantastic in every respect-he played the part written for him perfectly. Despite what some people have said, describing him as empty as a character, it was exactly like watching a Bond Film-brilliant! My only criticism would be that he was not given enough to say, and that it relied on his physical presence too much.

With regards to the film itself, i thought the plot was a little weak, and was too fragmented. Having said this, EON have managed to make a mediocre plot into a great film, the cinematography is awesome. Opening with black and white was a stroke of genius, as were some of the breathtaking aerial shots. I was disappointed by the omission of Moneypenny as she does have a line in the novel, though the portrayal of the Villain, Le Chiffre-personally, i think he is the best villain since Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Now into specifics. I thought that the car chase in which Bond rolls the car could have been extended and maybe have brought in other elements of the film. to counter this, maybe the chase scene at the construction site could be cut down, as this drags on a little long, despite some of the fantastic stunts. The scene with the chase at the airports was great-really edge-of-your-seat stuff, as were some of the one-liners by Bond, even if they were darker than useual. The "yes-considerably" in the opening sequence was classic, as was his "every penny of it". It may sound sexist, but I like Bond as a machoistic chauvinist. On this note i had hoped for a longer, more action packed opening sequence, in the mould of Die Another Day, or Goldfinger, but the psycology of the scene partially made up for it.

I noticed watching the film that some of the concepts were taken from previous Bond Films-which, if done in the right way add greatly to the production-The sprinklers in the airport were used in the Cuban hospital in Die Another Day, the fight in the "cockpit" of the van from "licence to Kill" and the seeing his enemies in the broken glass in the Venice house from countless films, mirroring the reflection in the eyes at the opening of "Goldfinger". These factors added to the feeling that it was a Bond film I was watching, not just another action film.

With regards to Vesper Lynd, with her death, it was the first time scince Lazenby in OHMSS that I have felt such compassion and sadness at the death of a character in a Bond film-again, Eva Green plays a fantastic heroine, and the scene in which she dies really shocked and moved me.

Sorry for the length of this review but i thought that the first film for four years deserved it. Yes it is a new Bond, yes it is is different, and yes is is absolutely bloody brilliant!
8/10
Bourne Again: The Bond Identity
trinitysitesarah21 November 2006
Yes, they had no choice but to get serious about rejuvenating the Bond series: say what you will about Damon's franchise, the DVD sales of "Bourne Identity" were through-the-roof, and Pierce Brosnan's employers had to see the writing on the wall.

Suffice it to say, the New Bond is equally as brutal but not as real-world as the "Bourne" series... Yet the competition is definitely in play: "Casino Royale" is both the best Bond movie since the 1960s, and also the most faithful to its source book since ... maybe ever? Although "Casino Royale" feels slightly too long, it's a minor quibble with such a banquet of what's good about it: an adult relationship with substance (again, forced via competition with "Bourne"), a fantastic foot-chase as good as any car chase (although does anybody else miss the pre-CGI days where stunts really were real?), Craig's acting (best since Sean, believe it) hits the perfect (purist, gritty) tone, some excellent twists... all that's missing is a classic theme song for the ages.

So the question is: what would Ian Fleming think of this new tough, brutal Bond? None of us can honestly answer that question, but for Bond fans, the next Daniel Craig Bond cannot come soon enough.

On a personal note, I can't let go of "Bourne," partially because Bourne is truly real-world, and he's a hunted character as well -- the stakes are always higher for Bourne than for Bond. But I'm hoping that the scriptwriting & directorial craftsmanship stays high for the next Bond, because Bond's an elder statesman of the genre and has a respected place.

I could do without the RFID audience-conditioning bullshit, however.
9/10
Almost Perfect
jrschlegel18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig excels every Bond in the past 40 years (everyone but Connery). However, I believe that if Craig came first, everyone would be saying vice-versa. His blond hair, blue eyes, and scars make him brood and give probably the most in-depth look and emotionally strung Bond yet. The plot actually gets confusing, so pay attention its not like the Brosnan age. Martin Campbell turns a 180 on the series making an almost artistically crafted movie rather than a popcorn-summer flick. Despite being a cold and dark Bond, Daniel Craig still comes out as charming and pulls off the witty lines without seeming corny. The action was expertly choreographed and didn't seem corny either (unlike the motorcycle scene in Tomorrow Never Dies). There were four "disappointments" within the movie. 1. The theme song was a bit crappy itself- not too bad instrumentally strung throughout the film. 2. The whole movie came to a halt after the poker/torture scene. There's about 30 min. of a love story between Bond and Vesper that seems like it could have been cut to 15 min. or dispersed throughout the rest. I appreciated the effort and character development so I'm still glad they put that in because it would have been pretty crappy if they hadn't attempted it. 3. All you see of the Aston Martin DBS is in the trailer- I expected more. 4. The movie is a bit too long.
10/10
Retro Bond
rowe524618 November 2006
I saw Casino Royale last night and was extremely impressed. This Bond film is a throwback to the early Sean Connery days of low tech-high drama. Gone are the insane helicopter stunts, ridiculous explosions, jet powered backpacks, cars that double as submarines, flights into outer space and all the gadgetry that, if they did exist, would make us wonder how in the world can any maniacal terrorist anywhere escape justice. In fact Q is not even in the picture. For some this may be a disappointment but IMHO this makes Casino Royale the best Bond film since the early days. I grew up in the 60's loving Bond and Sean Connery. But Connery's Bond was himself a horse of a different color. Connery's Bond was suave and sophisticated, a cultured animal that brought class to his character. But Brocolli's 00's had to be ruthless. Craig brings an edge to Bond that no other actor has done so far. Craig is not the upper class bourgeois taught to kill for Queen and country he is a killer recruited and expertly trained to hob nob with the world's sophisticates. Casino Royale also exposes to us a very human and vulnerable side to Bond. This is most clearly seen in his love affair with Vesper which reveals a Bond with a tortured soul. I love the new direction taken in this long series of Bond films. It is fresh. It gives us a Bond who is a real human character not a caricature of comic book superhero without a cape and utility belt. If you're a fan of the "Superhero"Bond you might not like the change, but if you remember the days when Bond was a real man you will love Casino Royale. It's the best Bond since Connery and may even be better than that!
9/10
Refreshed, reinvigorated, and returned
JackWade0072 December 2006
After a four year hiatus and coming off of by far the most camp, dull, and ridiculous Bond film in the series' four-decade long history, 007 is back and has returned in full glory.

Casino Royale is a fresh breath of air after suffering eleven years of nonsense thanks to Pierce Brosnan. Daniel Craig's portrayal of the British icon is spot-on, thanks to witty and intelligent dialogue from Paul Haggis.

Filling out the cast are French beauty Eva Green as Vesper, who delivers one of the most human and emotional Bond girls since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Mads Mikkelsen as LeChiffre is brilliant; sinister and brutal, but yet not over-the-top as has become custom in the more recent entries. And, of course, Judi Dench's M is masterful, as expected from the Oscar-award winning actress.

Casino Royale is a success in so many ways. It has reinvigorated the franchise, bringing it back from possible suicide after the disastrous Die Another Day. It has refreshed a stale formula that Brosnan's Bond films seemed to rely on--an overload on gadgets and plain old ridiculousness. And most importantly, it sends a statement that James Bond has indeed returned.

There are a few minute quibbles with the film. The most agreed upon problem is that at 144 minutes, the movie is too long. It does seem that the movie could end at around three different points. If you're not totally into the movie, it's possible to get lost in the story. There are several different plot twists that are easy to get lost in and leave you wondering what's happening. And while David Arnold produced his best score since his first go at the Bond movies with Tomorrow Never Dies, it seems as if the entire movie is accompanied by music.

But in the end, Casino Royale is the best Bond film since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And credit is due to two in particular--the producers and Daniel Craig. Eon took a big risk with Casino Royale, darting from the cheesy style that brought in $430 million worldwide with the last movie, and then hiring a controversial star to wear the tux. And, I think it's safe to say Daniel Craig spat in the face of all the naysayers, portraying undoubtedly the most hardcore, realistic Bond since Sean Connery.

Casino Royale is fantastic and one of the best films of the year. James Bond is back, and he is here to stay.
8/10
Bond - Back in action!
Mr_Hardcastle25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I was neither for or against the casting of Daniel Craig, and went into this movie with an absolutely open mind.

I'm glad they've established Bond's brutality straight away in the pre-credits sequence (though was initially wondering where the gun-barrel was). Mind you, wasn't it rather pointless? I mean, in many previous films the pre-credits sequence has set everyone up for the rest of the film and its plot. If this was simply to prove that Bond has been re-invented, well, I don't think it was all that effective.

LOVED the titles, and the Chris Cornell song. They both blended well, and, were it not for the fact that I didn't know the words, I'd probably have sung along too. Bond songs have been rather lame of late; DAD was awful, TWINE and TND were far too slow and mellow. So it was nice for a change - as well as a male singer finally! Speaking of music, I was most impressed with the score - Arnold's best for sure.

The beginning of the film was strong overall - and the action sequences were superb. It was the middle part of the film that I really enjoyed - the poker game was so incredibly tense; I mean, I don't even know how to play it, but I felt like I was sat around that table with them. Some people have complained that the film lagged during these bits; but I think the very subtle showdown was one of the film's greatest highlights.

The torture sequence was painful to watch, but I think it was necessary to have Bond put through a real test - and also to see Le Chiffre's darker side. Vesper's betrayal and death was quite effective - one of the few effective moments in what I thought was a comparatively weak and unsatisfying ending.

I'll go through some individual characters and state my own thoughts; James Bond:- Brilliant. I must admit that I always prefer the villains in Bond movies, but here, watching the man himself was a highlight. I disagree that he is ugly, or doesn't fit the role. His lighter hair is one of the most ridiculous things anyone could complain about - because it doesn't matter one bit. Craig has the look, the physicality, the character and style of an all-new Bond down to a T. I'd like to think this man will be around for at least two or three more films.

Vesper Lynd:- Quite simply the best Bond girl for decades. I found her intriguing at first, and then, as did Bond, I warmed to her greatly as her character shone through. Eva Green was the perfect girl for the part, and she was everything you could hope for. Her death was very effective, and made me feel for Bond.

Le Chiffre:- Right, this is where I start complaining. I didn't think Le Chiffre was particularly good at all. He looked relatively menacing, and was set up to be a dangerous man - but when it came down to it - what was he? What henchmen he had (who, to be honest, I can't even remember) were completely ineffective. Second of all, he didn't look anything like he was supposed to. Throughout the film he never looked like he had any real control over anything, and he was totally underused. His death was absolutely pathetic, far too early, and at the hands of Mr White - who himself didn't look at all menacing. I firmly believe that Bond should dispatch the main villain himself, at the film's conclusion, in a tense duel. Not that the villain should be killed rather suddenly by some boring character three quarters of the way through the film. Summing up, I don't believe Le Chiffre achieved anything - he was plain, like all his henchmen. His death was just part of what made the film's conclusion weak for me.

Felix Leiter - Were he to be used in future Bond films, I could see the character - and Jeffrey Wright - being used to good effect. Here, he had no real purpose.

To sum up; Strong beginning, very strong middle, and a rather so-so ending which left me unsatisfied. The villains in general were some of the weakest I've seen for a long time - even DAD's were better - simply because of Miranda Frost. TWINE had Elektra King. Hell, even TND had a more memorable villain in Carver - and had the fantastic Dr. Kaufman. But I have to say that the rest of the film thoroughly made up for it - I'm not quite ready to rank it amongst all the others - but for now I can certainly confirm it's in my top quarter. Bond is back in action - roll on Bond 22!
10/10
Back to the Basics...Casino Royale Shines as a Great Addition to the Bond Collection
cem000718 November 2006
I first have to say that I am a James Bond fan, including the books. I first read From Russia With Love - my mother's copy - when I was in High School. I liked Ian Fleming's style of writing and the subject of a rather gritty life a secret agent lives everyday. I was hooked from that first book. I then read the Fleming books in order and went and then read Casino Royale. As a fan of the books and movies, I was always fascinated with the story of Casino Royale. I was also disgusted with the spoof Casino Royale with Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, and tons of others. It was funny but rather stupid to use this first Ian Fleming book as a spoof. Well, finally, after 40 years, the movie adaptation of the Fleming book was well worth the wait. I have to admit that I was highly skeptical of the new actor Daniel Craig playing a so beloved character that any true Bond fan does not want to get their hopes up too much to then be disappointed. Upon reading many of the comments here on IMDb from the UK opening I was extremely surprised to hear the movie was rather good. Now, after seeing last night I have to admit that Casino Royale puts James Bond not just on his game, but excelling. Daniel Craig and Eva Green do an excellent job as do all of the cast. The dialogue is well done and is also kept quiet when none is needed. The special effects are back grounded in what we are all amazed with the rest of the Bond films - the stunts - not necessarily special effects - that are done and amaze us all. To know that a stunt was done with real cars, people, etc. is what brings back the Bond movie fans. That is the wow factor of the Bond movies versus the books. Show me a tale that is believable but fantastically extraordinary. Being a secret agent in the world plants the seed of such a fantastic and extraordinary story that is already there for the taking for producers and directors to wow us with. If you go too far in science fiction and in making the story just utterly unbelievable - then you lose that wow factor because it is just not believable. In Casino Royale, James Bond is brought back to us by the telling of how he became the secret agent who is seen in all those other wonderful movies. Casino Royale is a pleasure to watch for any James Bond fan and is definitely a wonderful ride for the newest generation who is seeing there first Bond movie. Congratulations, 007 - your license to thrill has been confirmed!
9/10
This is James Bond
quakeulf28 November 2006
100% pure, testosterone-pumped, adrenalin-rushed, burly manliness taken to the penultimate extremes, pushing beyond the boundaries that defines and confines the male part in the modern-day specie Homo Sapiens: Daniel Craig as James Bond. Never seen since Sean Connery in the opening of "Diamonds are forever", and never executed in such a manly fashion since Timothy Dalton talked it out on in "Licence to kill". The only limitation, the only confinement being the very length of the movie itself, and this being the longest Bond-movie since "On her majesty's secret service".

This movie is the impeccable testament to James Bond's true nature: Being a burly man and taking massive damage and always shrugging it off, ready for the next scene. Only half his smile and the tip of his little fingernail would be more a man than any other man in the history of men since they reached maturity in the Homo Sapiens-era.

I am ready and begging for more Bond with Daniel Craig. It is time we end the era of inane gadgetry, stop the silliness of previous Bonds, and go down to it raw, muscle by muscle, leaving only the bare skin open and ready to launch one hell of an attack. I can already feel the rugged hairs curl on my back.

I give it: 9/10 (There was one scene in the movie that didn't shout "MAN" to me in both my ears at the same time.)
9/10
The bond i have been waiting for!!
louem00-124 November 2006
As a bond fan for many years i have to say that i walked out of the cinema wanting to see the next showing again. Many people on here have slated this film completely and all i can say is that they are living in the past. Its nice to put the dvds of the other bonds on and go back to the gadgets etc but for me i was getting incredibly bored by seen the same stuff rehashed onto the big screen all the time. I went to see die another day and swore i would never go to see another bond again. I got talked into this one and boy am i glad i went - this movie blows some much needed fresh air into the bond series, and i have to say to all those people who hated craig as bond...How much more would you like from a bond???!! i have to admit that the blond hair took me about 5 mins to get used to but he is awesome - i hope he makes a good few more. This is bond being moved into the next era and for me i cant wait. I personally needed to see some change in the way they were done and for the first time i will pre-order this on DVD as soon as possible.

I walked out of the cinema hearing...Hes the best bond ever!!! all around me..And for once it was nice to agree with everyone. The last time i watched a bond movie i though what the hell did i pay to watch that garbage for.

A worthy bond in every way:)
8/10
Getting back to the source - Ian Fleming would be thrilled
rk-4513 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Casino Royal represents a new beginning for the 007 franchise. The character of Bond is thoroughly flawed (until push comes to shove). He is sexist, brutal and simpleminded but with a thin varnish of sophistication just as Ian Fleming intended. The basis of the story is relatively believable in all its human simplicity. The motivation for both the good and the bad guys is neither world domination nor "King and Country" – a refreshing touch.

At the same time this, the first Bond story ever, reveals the reason for the future development of the character and even hints at a future foe.

Though simple in plot and less soaked in gadgets and gizmos, Casino Royal is still a real Bond flick. Hot girls, evil villains and spectacular effects set in a luxurious environment of classy cars and tall cocktails.

Craig delivers a great performance and unlike Brosnans later efforts he gives back some personality to the greatest agent to cross the silver screen.
10/10
Daniel Craig IS Bond! (Spoiler only if you think omitting something is spoiling it)
Godstud18 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A fantastic movie with Bond reborn! While you won't and the silly gadgets that slowly made bond into Inspector Gadget. No Politically Correct junk that made him into a wuss. This is cutting edge Bond that relies on his intellect and his myriad abilities. This is the Bond for the New Millennium! I think this is the BEST Bond and Daniel Craig, whom I doubted could pull it off, made himself into a believable James Bond. Bravo!!! Eva Green was superb and a perfect counterpart as Vesper Lynd. She was intelligent, and while not as glamorous as some of the previous Bond girls (in my opinion) she more than made up for it with her great lines and cutting remarks to Bond. She's probably a Bond girl that can appeal to everyone! Now, alas, the tough part... waiting for the next Bond film!
10/10
I don't like Bond movies, but this one blew me away.
p_samantha17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Like my summary says, I am not a fan of Bond movies. They are always predictable and a waste of time. Casino Royal however, is a must see for fans and non fans alike. The movie has non stop action with constant mind blowing footage and acting that brings out an interpretation of Bond unlike any I have ever seen.

Never in my life has a poker game brought me to the edge of my seat, nor has it ever even peaked my interest. Normally when everything in a movie boils down to who can play poker the best, I leave. But this game kept me riveted. I couldn't even go to the bathroom, I was so fixated.

If I could give it more than ten I would. And that's coming from a Bond hater.
9/10
A bold direction
geordiegheezer19 November 2006
As a lifelong Bond fan I was worried. Daniel Craig just did not fit the bill. Maybe that was the problem as the teasers came out they looked good and I became curious. Once the movie was released I studied the previews for what I had been expecting yet nothing but praise (and the odd sourpuss) After seeing the movie I am impressed. This is a bold direction but now I see long overdue. The new Bond is for now, taut and violent as he needs to be. I cant wait for the next movie. Well done Daniel! Not fitting the bill was exactly what was needed. HOWEVER................ The product placement is blatant and spoils a very slick movie. Fords are seen throughout the movie every other car in the car park is the Aston Martin or Range Rovers or Jaguars, get the picture! too much too much! This movie was a 10 but dropped to 9 because of this!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Same suit, different style
surrealIdeal1 May 2008
Bond returns in a film that could be the best bond film ever made. It reminds you at the days of Sean Connery, but no, this one could be better. I DON'T miss the Cold War... A better script, more realistic bad-guys and real characters. No futuristic science-fiction gadgets or bond-girls with only a name and a minimum of clothes. Bond has a personality, thanks to the writers and the performance of Daniel Craig. Good score, camera-work and decors to, that still gives you the real feeling you're watching a bond-film.

If you don't like bond-films at all this will not be an exception. It still fits in the bond collection and it still has its ordinary storyline, but I think they made the best of it and so I would certainly recommend it. I don't give it more than a seven because there are still a lot of clichés, but you don't mind when you see all the action and the story behind the number 007 that can grab you from the beginning.

So, stop reading this review. Just go and see it.
9/10
Great new Bond, fewer gadgets, incredible stunts, believable girl.
billkamin30 March 2007
An early sequence with Bond pursuing a black killer through a construction site has some of the best stunt action I've ever see. There are other great action sequences, including a building demolition, but an airport chase, while very exciting overall, has him running again. Doesn't he ever tire? The acting and actors are very good. Judi Dench and Eva Green contribute to the ensemble. Craig looks great. He's buff and athletic. Extraordinary blue eyes. And he can act! This movie does not depend on fantastic gadgetry or special effects. Good plot with some nice twists and a believable romance make up a satisfying whole. I remember the early Bonds with Sean Connery,and Daniel Craig is certainly best Bond since then.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Welcome Back Mr Bond Its been along time
dvdmanu26 November 2006
I don't want to spoil anything for anyone going to see this movie. But James Bond is back !!!!!!!. Daniel Craig is first class as James Bond 007 and he holds his own( he really does ) against any of the other bonds before him. He has got the hard edge that Sean Connery brought to Bond and wit and cool of Roger Moore and i am sure he will be Bond for the next 15 years or more. There is tons of action ( and the first 50 minutes is break neck non stop ) , great cars and the Aston Martin is cool and good old fashioned villain. what more could you want in your James bond movie. So sit back and enjoy the ride , welcome back Mr Bond.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Bond finally get's his depth back!
Cluey18 January 2008
I've always been a fan of Bond movies, even the less than great ones are good for entertainment, yet they never seemed to try to present Bond as anything more than the character we've always known about, he never needed any introduction because he was simply cut out from the Bond image and pasted into each film. After so many films it became a little tiring (especially with some of the Moore films). Some actors, especially Connery and Dalton, brought the gritty yet suave, arrogant yet careful character of Bond to the screen with some credibility, and I was pleased to say that Craig brings back the depth that the character was lacking for so many films under Brosnan (although I loved Goldeneye, but that was the first Bond Film I saw, being fairly young).

Casino Royale certainly starts with a bang, the initial Noir opening feels a little arty, but it doesn't detract from ( and upon reflection it was probably meant to highlight) the cold character that appears on screen, Craig's Bond. We are treated to a manically shot fight scene in a public toilet, in which we see Bond's first grisly dispatch of the movie. The credits roll (awesome music from the ex Soundgarden singer) and I felt a certain chill, was this finally going to be the cheese free, human Bond? The film then proceeded to hurl masterfully choreographed fight scenes, ball achingly tense thriller scenes and some genuinely meaningful personal scenes with Bond and Vesper my way. Sure it was missing some of staples of Bond, M seemed to be more of a fan-service and the lack of Q was a little saddening, though I couldn't see them replacing Llewelyn and including Cleese would have removed the point of a reboot. All in all, the omission of some Bond staples was a breath of fresh air, many of them had grown tired and it's ironic that the first Bond story ever written should be the one that refreshes the audience. It's mostly down to the brilliant portrayal by Craig and the entirely new gritty feel that this movie shines. I'm aware many people hate it for not being Bond enough, but those people are basing that assumption purely on the bulk of the films and not the book. Craig is a competent and nigh on perfect bond, only bested by Connery in my opinion.
10/10
Disrespectful to say he is the best?
Discoyoda19 November 2006
I just saw this last night in a super packed theater ( so no more skepticism about Happy Feet beating it)and when i left there was a line practically as long as a track and field arena and for good reason. Casino Royale captures the essence and gritty subject matter that is the Casino Royale book (Although the first half of the movie is entirely new material but no one was complaining). I have seen and enjoyed every Bond film to date (actually scratch Moonraker and Die Another Day) and I gotta say in my opinion Daniel Craig fits the role to a T. He is the closest actor to portray the book character to date. FINALLY SOME VULNERABILITY! This movie was so perfect for Bond that i think i am seeing it again today....and maybe two more times after that.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Quality
kpwpsme6 June 2020
As good as it gets for any film, let alone a Bond film. Fantastic entertainment.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Stunning, sexy and sophisticated
abi-masih20 November 2006
A refreshing 'real' insight into James Bond's persona. This is an action packed movie with class. The dialogue is far from cheesy, it's very sharp, very cool and very very sexy. Daniel Craig has done a superb job at giving us a character that we can believe in. If you're still unsure, once you've seen him in his tux, and graceful exit from the waters in his "perfectly formed arse", you will agree that he has finally given us an insight into Bond. He is far from the "blunt instrument" described by 'M', he is the perfect gentleman and shows the physical strength it takes to be on her majesty's secret service.

A fantastic film. I could watch it again...
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bond at his Best
durkin810416 December 2006
To start off, let me be honest and say the only other Bond flicks I saw were Golendeye, and Tomorrow Never Dies, and I think Pierce Brosnon is great, and was a good Bond for the over the top 90's....But Craig IS Bond!! This guy is the best one I have ever seen. And this movie is the best I have ever watched (I've seen many different parts from the other movies, so take it for what it's worth. This movie is insanely good. Bond is more than a flashy Brit with stupid one-liners, and the nick of time gadgetry that he always has on him. This is one bad dude, who just keeps powering through the bad-guys with nothing more than street smarts and the ability to not stop running and or fighting, for periods exceeding 20 minutes at time. I've never seen this character so deep and three-dimensional. I only went to go see this movie cause of all the buzz, and the slight hope that it wouldn't be 99% style and 1% substance. Watch it, maybe twice, this is the definitive Bond, not just for now, but for all time....Sorry Connery.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
What Should Have Been
chr_botor7 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
These days people are into story lines and portrayals that are real and can easily relate to.

The movie was a real reboot of the franchise. By erasing the hero type machismo image the previous Bonds have made, it changed the landscape and gave the fans a better understanding of what 007 should have been. This movie was a better portrayal of the character, makes mistakes, cannot accept mistakes, and is deeply heart-broken because of betrayal. The movie may not have been the perfect spy story nor an assassin movie but compared to the old ones, murder.

OK so he fell in love with the accountant, she really played him well. For most films there must be a love story, they have to include it. My concern though was he shouldn't have placed his personal feelings in the game. What he could have done was business, strictly business even if they were on vacation for months. As a spy, he should have played her well too, one of the mistakes he committed that made him better that the other 007s. Oh well rookie mistakes.

To sum it all it was better, more real, and entertaining. Surely this Bond silenced the critics.
9/10
New and Improved.
ruxpin300030 November 2006
Like many other people I had an obsession with Bond as a child, few other characters caught me the same way. I'd seen every single bond movie out by the time I started middle school and wore that like a badge of honor (and back then that enviable).

But also like many others, I was not the biggest Brosnan fan. I personally think that Dalton is the best Bond, and Brosnan just never captured me the same way. The movies turned into tech demos for new products and the usage of gadgets was almost laughable. This is a movie, with a plot, with action, and it's a lot of fun - that's all it took to sell me.

Casino Royale tried, and I think was successful, at wiping the slate clean for the Bond series. There is a real sense of character development and intrigue in this film, it's a real return to the roots of the series. It does have it's lows, though - I rolled my eyes through the text messaging tidbits, and about the time the 2 hour mark passed by it slumped a little, but as a whole I feel like James Bond still has a few kicks left in him.

The acting is also surprisingly good. Daniel Craig plays the role very confidently and while all the kinks aren't out, I already know I'm going to be at the next one just like Mr. Broccoli would have wanted.
5/10
As good as a Bond film can get, I suppose
scottstilson6 July 2015
As good as a Bond film can get, I suppose. It got very good reviews partly because it eschews cockamamie gadgetry and mines Bond's emotional back-story, but I found it a somewhat unsatisfying film despite its acting and production merits, like a gourmet dinner featuring raw ingredients you don't like. I found it manipulative, with chintzy spy-movie plot twists and unbelievable love affairs that are made only made engaging by artful performances from Daniel Craig and Eva Green. The $150 million production budget and it-seems-like-dozens-of expertly staged and executed set pieces help raise it above total meaninglessness. Tense, beautiful, with acting that trumps the vacuity of the writing, the movie is a worthwhile rent. I'm sure the book would make an engaging beach read.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Casino Royale is best bod movie ever, and Craig is the best bond
shaanmathpal17 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After over a year of intense media interest, magazine scrutiny and arduous production, Casino Royale -- the 21st James Bond movie -- opens this Friday. The Martin Campbell-directed film, based on Ian Fleming's first Bond novel, is nothing short of an amazing accomplishment. After decades of bloat and self-parody, the franchise has been revitalized. Casino Royale makes 007 cool, relevant and real again.

The heart of Casino Royale -- both the novel and the film -- is the love story between Bond and Vesper. Thankfully, the filmmakers have pulled it off with class and heart. But the point of Fleming's story was always about how Bond -- after suffering at the hands of Le Chiffre and then facing even greater pain later -- realizes his place in the world and that he must go after the threat behind the threat. In other words, James Bond literally and figuratively gets his balls back, and that testicular fortitude is exactly what this 44-year-old franchise has needed for many years now. action without cgi, ultimate acting and style its simply raw, good to have you back bond
10/10
Royale Play 10/5-
thebenzeneringcode25 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A) Kate Winslet birthday their next mission. It would be a real experience that. Be there for benzene ring code mission. He says that our mission would complete on next birthday. Will they appreciate by us?

B) I chary everybody of this political condition that a terrorist attack will held there unwary moment. And it is not a expectancy thing. I named it 10/5 terrorist attack. Will you worry about that? Than it's a hope and reliance.
glad i didn't pay to see this movie
john_kiley19 November 2006
wtf beginning, underdeveloped villains, evil banker/stat genius, making crying blood scary..., drawn out plot, 150 million dollar budget, drawing off ESPN 2 world poker championship suspense, a can ofcheeze-wiz, filler characters with no real purpose (Mr. White), making Daniel Craig look like a hack, no happy endings: $9.75

when I was walking out of the theatre a ten year old was grasping his popcorn twizzlers said he was never gonna see another Bond film ever again. I turned around and made some comment on his head being on straight: priceless

uhh did M stand for mommy?
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Casino Royale
fletch259420 November 2006
Daniel Craig gives a great overhaul for Bond after the Brosnan era and to great effect. The casino scenes and the rugged violence that Daniel uses makes the young Bond a good character to watch. The Texas Hold 'em, the opening scene over the cranes and the pure talent from Daniel Craig gives it a good edge for a film.

Bond isn't as perfect and unharmable as in the previous films which really humanises him well and makes him look vulnerable in places puts a new perspective on Bond, it uses it to good effect in this film.

The women in this film are stunning yet "Vesper" although stunningly beautiful is somebody who looks like she wants to mould and shape Bond. The action and drama as well as Romance Bond has really sets this film aside from most other Bond films we've seen in a long time. the reviews and responses from critics and fans have been overwhelmingly positive and right fully so. One to watch in the cinema and then watch again when it comes out on DVD.

A great Bond film.
This sets off a new Bond era
jcurbaez28 December 2006
Nobody has ever mentioned the fact that DC had already led an already-formed actor career, able to pull off real dramatic situations, at the moment of taking over the James Bond role while Pierce Brosnan, even though with a career also, would be considered a "star" -with the whole of its negative connotation- rather than an actual actor. I still remember how Brosnan had struggled all the way to get the role: believe it or not, he was no first choice at all even before Timothy Dalton.

It might be the first time EVER a real actor and not just a mug poser is cast in a Bond movie. And yes, many other Bond features look awfully dull compared to the one presently into question. But we should also take into consideration that, along with Batman Begins and Superman Returns, this film intends to settle the way how a well-known character is and why he would become what he did or why he would trust no one besides running for shelter when it comes to real emotional attachments -and that's why he comes into a seashell towards the very end: this stands for James Bond's vulnerability, fact which had been kind of put aside over the very large number of years of Bond's character development. That is what, I guess, makes the difference. I don't think Pierce Brosnan would have possibly or successfully pulled this off. Seriously.
7/10
Too long
ed-41429 March 2007
At last bond grows up! It has taken a long time to move away from the schoolboy humour of Roger Moore & pierce brosnan (although pierce probably rescued the bond character after the dreadful Moore & boring dalton). At last a gritty bond much closer to the Fleming character, & not as 'prissy as Mr.Brosnan. Barbera broccoli & Michael Wilson have after many years of abusing bond & creating a poor comedy character finally done the right thing.

They have chucked out the dodgy gimmicks and sideshow characters and produced a film of quite a high calibre. Daniel Craig has done a brilliant job & considering all the criticism he originally received deserves enormous praise. Maybe the 'bourne' films deserve a word of credit, in that they highlighted how good a 'spy' film could be.

However the film would have benefited significantly by ditching the poisoning scene and being about 10 minutes shorter.
8/10
A New Look for Bond
bluemickey74720 November 2006
Going to the theater tonight I did not expect much. For me, Bond movies have always been a novelty thing not to be taken seriously and lately they have become so ridiculous that I stopped watching all together. So needless to say, I was quite surprised that I wanted more when it ended. The movie kept me entertained with nere a dull moment. It seemed all I heard pre-movie were people complaining about the "blond bond" and how Craig wouldn't be able to pull it off. Well, they were all wrong. With "Casino Royale" they are reinventing Bond, refreshing him for a more modern audience. Hence the new look and attitude of the movie and its title character. We also get to see more of the personal side of Bond and what exactly it is that makes him the way he is. That, and during it all, Craig is pretty easy on the eyes ;-)

I definitely recommend going to see this one in the theater. Fantastical fun yet with a human touch. Huzzah for the new Bond!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best Bond Ever
brackbatter81411 January 2007
I've seen every Bond film at least ten times (thanks to TBS, Spike, et all over the years) and so I feel assured when I declare that this is the best of all the Bond films. Having read the novel, I must say that it is an excellent adaptation, for it retains the elements that made the first Bond adventure such a draw, while discarding all of the pulpy, misogynistic and poorly structured plotting of Fleming's original tale. In the novel, women are presented as the antithesis of men, weak, scheming and needy. There is even a Biblical theme that women are the root of all mankind's (and Bond's) problems. The third act of the book is a joke, dragging on and on with atrocious dialogue (look to the conversation towards the end of the book where Vesper suggests everyone is like an island, to which Bond coyly replies that maybe their islands should meet and they could form a peninsula. That was in the book, cross my heart and hope to die!) The film places the story in a contemporary setting, fills it out with more action and humanizes Bond in a way that is somehow true to the character of the previous films and novels, but manages to update him and make him more compelling for modern audiences. Craig is perfectly suited to the role. It's delightful to note that the film is dead serious, but doesn't take itself overly seriously. I love Brosnan, but rewatch any of his films and you'll find yourself zoning out periodically because the films were so convoluted and seemed to constantly be crying out "We're serious! See, we mention politics and go to thirty locations and have three girls, etc etc". They're such a sensory overload. Casino Royale is a welcome departure. It has a narrative that is leaner, more focused, and overall, much more interesting because you care about the characters. Eva Green is the best bond girl ever, without question. She is both sexy and intelligent, and her character has believable motives. Madds Mikkelsen makes for an arresting and charismatic opponent, and Judi Dench is able to flesh out her role more thoroughly almost than Bernard Lee, the original M. The script is the best, the characters are the most explored, and Craig is the best bond of any in the series. It may take a while for some of the die-hards to realize this, but after they find themselves watching this movie over and over instead of returning to The World is Not Enough or Diamonds Are Forever, they'll realize that it is the Zenith of Bondian entertainment, and they'll eagerly anticipate the nest installment for the first time in a long time. I know I am.
9/10
Bond is dead! Long live Bond! - Casino Royale
deepkid19 November 2006
In light of the rubbish that Hollywood's excreted in the last 10 years, it's quite tempting to give Casino Royale a full perfect rating.

Movie and TV fanatics are justifiably nutty when it comes to replacing actors in a popular production, but the wrath Daniel Craig's endured to step into the 007 role should perhaps have fallen onto the likes of Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and to some degree Roger Moore ... this said after watching Casino Royale. And prior to watching this film, Roger Moore was my favorite.

Casino Royale makes Bond almost believable again. Hell, one of my good friends could be mistaken as this Bond. No kidding. Daniel Craig gives Bond a wicked sense of humor, welcomed imperfections, appreciation for life and an example of living extremes. I'm already a fan of Judi Dench and when a non-comedy manages to make me guffaw more than 5 times, there's a richness not often found in today's cinema.

Many of the pros have already given you decent reviews about the mechanics of the movie, but from one movie fan to another -- it's a great feeling to not feel robbed after paying nearly $10 for a ticket. Moreover, it's nearly cinegasmic to feel like you've gotten your money's worth.

Many of you say that Casino Royale leaves lots of questions unanswered. It's refreshing to see a Hollywood movie do just that! Not in the tacky there's-obviously-a-sequel-coming sort of way, but similar to the way more sophisticated foreign/art house films pique interest and leave something to the viewer's imagination. And that's definitely a deviation from Hollywood's typical color-by-numbers output.

Isn't it priceless to crave the next Bond film in an era in which the mention of a sequel is about as pleasurable as swigging down an entire jar of castor oil?
8/10
Vintage entry in the Bond series.
harry_smyth25 November 2006
There was only one way for Daniel Craig to respond to the wave of criticism that came his way after he was unveiled as the latest incarceration of perhaps the most popular and enduring character in movie history. In Casino Royale, he turns in one of the greatest performances as Bond, right up there at the top tier. It is difficult to compare the performances of the actors who have played the screen legend that is James Bond as each actor has had their own personal style but Craig gives an air of believability to the role, perhaps not seen since the first two entries in the series: Dr. No and From Russia With Love. This really is a superb piece of film-making that provides a real treat to the audience. The pre-titles sequence is shorter in duration than the norm, but certainly delivers on impact. The theme song struck me as being solid rather than spectacular, i would certainly be reluctant to place it up there with Live and Let Die and Dance into the fire. Sit back and enjoy the most entertaining film to be released this year and one that is right up there with the best films of the series.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
among the best bond films
marcusguldager13 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Can a series of films last more than twenty entries and still make sense? The answer is no, and therefore the newest movie, Casino Royale, the last non-filmed Ian Flemming novel, is a complete reboot of the franchise. The novel Casino Royale (also the fist novel about bond), takes place during the cold war, so obviously some changes had to be made. First, the setting has been changed to present time, SMERSH has been replaced with a terrorist organisation, and the card game has been changed from Baccarat to Texas hold em, and the fist 40 minutes is completely new. Apart from that, Casino Royale stays very true to the amazing novel. But is it any good? lets find out.

The film starts with a 4 minute sequence of bond achieving his double-oh status. Its completely in black and white, which works well. We also see a different gun barrel, than in the last movies. After that sequence, the title song begins. The song is "you know my name" by Chris Cornell. The song is very good, and also slightly different than other songs. Also, the song actually does not contain any nude dancing women, the very first time since Dr no. Instead, the general theme of the opening song is, fittingly, cards.

after that, the fist act starts. As I said before, the first act is completely original. The movie starts with an awesome chase scene. The chase scene is one of the best chase scenes in movie history. After that, we slowly gets introduced to the movies villain, Le Chriffre, a private banker for terrorists. He intends to make a big gamble on the stock market, using terrorism as his method to win money. Needless to say, Bond stops Le Chiffres plan. Le Chriffre, now broke, sets up a high stake poker game in order to win back his money. Bond is sent to stop him. This is where the novel begins.

The movie does not only do the book justice, it actually improves it. The action scenes is not just good, they are great. The love story between Vesper and Bond doesn't feel forced at all, on the contrary it actually works really well. And don't even get me started on the villain. The evil super-intelligent mastermind Le Chiffre, played amazingly by Mads Mikkelsen, is one of the best villains yet. Its even implied, that he is responsible for the 9/11 attack. He is also played by Mads Mikkelsen, one of the best actors of all time, and is nothing but believable.

But how is the new bond, played by Daniel Craig? When it was announced, that he would play bond, it did lead to much controversity among fans. A BLOND BOND!! *shivers*. But as a matter of fact, he plays the role perfectly. He has charm, he is in good shape and plays incredibly well. I will almost dare to say, that he is just as good as Sean Connery.

When you add all these things together, Casino royale is an incredible movie, good plot, good action, good romance, good bond, good EVERYTHING!. This movie deserves to lie among the best of bond movies, along with "From Russia With Love", "goldfinger", "goldeneye" and the newly released "skyfall".

10/10
9/10
Dan's the man
bossT18 November 2006
Just saw casino royale last night

One word 'classy'

I was apprehensive about EON messing up the franchise with the introduction of Craig and Martin Campbell doing some adrenaline fuelled picture with no heart or style.

There was a lot of hype, the trailer looked good but fans were still unsure ......Mr.Potato head ...a blond blue-eyed bond.....this can't be right !

Well my friends we needn't have feared because Craig and Campbell nail this big time.

WARNING don't bother coming to see this if you are looking for fantasy bond.

Craig from the outset grabs you by the proverbial 'nuts' and doesn't let go.He is chilling,tough,tender(for the ladies) and a damn good actor. From the clips and trailers I saw I felt he may be too wooden and humourless but he reels off his lines with aplomb and a swagger.Even though there are some very corny lines or moments in the film Campbell always puts a twist in the take which catches you off guard. .The film is noir-ish,compelling,confident in its exposition: a hark back to 60's Bond but with a hard edge.

The support cast especially Judi Dench,Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen are just great.This is a film first and then a Bond flick.

By the time the signature tune kicks in you will be under no illusion that

Daniel Craig is BOND .......JAMES BOND

but of course the ladies would have already figured that out!
10/10
Chase, Play, Bluff.
lordofstones17 September 2020
Daniel Craig's first outing as James Bond really blew it off the roof. Well-paced story and action give us a lot to think about. Who knew 007 could have an emotional side? Why pull a trigger when a bluff would do? The best James Bond movie in my opinion.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good job Daniel!!
magnegrover9 December 2006
This is NOT your typical Bond-movie. Daniel Craig, an excellent actor, does a great job portraying the British MI6 agent.I do hold Sir Connery as the best Bond actor - but Craig does a hell of a job and he does have more depth in the character then Sir Connery, but that is because they develop their character more in this movie then ever before. It is dirty, it is rough - and it gives you another feeling then the other Bond-movies. If you go to the theater expecting to see your typical Bond-style movie - you will be disappointed - if you want to see a very good movie with great actors and actresses - and great action scenes!, then you will indeed be pleased. Great movie. Great cast! But I do hope Bond doesn't go gay as the rumor has it in the next movie...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good movie but too long
jensey120526 February 2007
While I enjoyed the movie I found it to be long a bit drug out. The title sequence lacked something, the song did not get my attention.I suppose the rest worked, to a certain extent, but I The opening sequence could have been shortened.I felt as though they were trying to prove "THIS BOND IS AS BAD ASS as the others and more so". If they had shortened it I may not have looked at my watch about 2 hours in. The storyline was complex, which I enjoyed, but I think the average viewer may have been lost until the very end-- this may have been the objective. I like Daniel Craig as Bond, but I thought this introduction to him as Bond COULD have been better although it was FINE. It was just, in my eyes, to drawn out. He will make a great Bond but I think they could have tried less to convince us that Craig is physically able to pull off the role. Regarding that -- I have absolutely no issue. Craig is a GREAT Bond. If they keep the nest one within reason, regarding keeping my attention, I will pay full price to see it in theaters.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Admirable but not much FUN
TJW-320 November 2006
Yes, Craig is a hard, lean and mean Bond and had me convinced of his Bondness after a few minutes.

Yes, some of the action scenes are intense.

Yes, the story is closer to Ian Fleming's books and basic concepts.

But ... the labyrinthine plot and occasional brutality was often just not much FUN. Of course, the "traditional" Bond movies are not so much Fleming's stories as spoofs of them -- and their plots were dumbed down to "Bond blows up the Big Bad Guy's Evil World-Threatening Installation with a BIG BOOM and then drills chicks on the beach." Casino Royale is more of a spy movie than a Bond movie -- it's about betrayal, black-white-gray ambiguity, mirrors reflecting mirrors, etc. etc. All that cloak-and-dagger stuff. In other words, it's Fleming's Bond, which isn't what people have been led to expect in the past 40 years of Bond movies.

So I admire the return to the source of the Bond mythos -- but I can't say I really ENJOYED the return. All the earlier Bond movies were essentially soda pop. This one is a very dry martini. Shaken or stirred? At least the Bond in this film gives the best answer yet....

TJW
9/10
Thuggery at it's sharp-dressed best!
SYMBOLIQ7 November 2008
My sincere thanks to all those responsible for restoring my faith in my favourite Secret Agent.

Daniel Craig is by far the best Bond, in my opinion. He portrayed JB the way I felt Ian Fleming had actually wanted - cheeky, ruthless and vulnerable.

Casino Royale is a thoroughly welcome departure from the campy renderings of old.

The script was crisp and droll. There were so many memorable lines. Among my favourites were :-

M: You've got a bloody cheek! James Bond: Sorry. I'll shoot the camera first next time. M: Or yourself.

and

James Bond: Vodka-martini. Bartender: Shaken or stirred? James Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?

But the very best line of the movie was:-

Bond: I've got a little itch, down there. Would you mind? (Le Chiffre swings knotted rope into Bond's genitals again) Bond: No! No! No, no, no, to the right. To the right, to the right!

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

The great news is, the Haggis-Purvis-Wade writing team has been retained for Quantum of Solace!
8/10
Best bond movie ever
SaltySethwin25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It was the one of the best movies I have ever seen. It was Jam packed with nonstop action and suspense; I had a hard time finding a break to refill my popcorn. The action started at the opening credits and did not stop until the end credits. I hope Daniel Crag is in the next James bond movie, He did a phenomenal job as James Bond. Crag was definitely the most athletic Bond and he also gave Bond a dark side that previous Bonds lacked. If they had to wreck an Aston Martin I am glad that they wrecked the new one and not the DB4. The Crane scene had me on the edge of my seat. I cannot wait until the next James bond movie comes out. I hope it is as good as this one.
5/10
An hour too long
qbsean1026 August 2021
To be honest I could have done entirely without the first half of the movie. Very bland very vanilla. Things pick up around the 1 hour mark and are pretty good from there.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel Craig is Welcome to the Bond Franchise!
meatloaf800025 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wow! I just saw Casino Royale today, and I believe it did the bond name much justice. The detailed review follows.

Plot: 6 -- The reason I did not give it a better score is due to the fact that I could hardly understand the plot. I gathered that there was a terrorist group, and to shut them down Bond had to win a bunch of money in a huge game of poker with the head honcho. Anything deeper than that was not explained very well to my liking. Therefore, the score is based on what I picked up.

Special FX: 9 -- Almost everything in the movie was believable. Explosions, death sequences, weaponry, it was all realistic. The part that brought a ten to a nine was when Bond stayed under water for about five minutes. He had already exerted his body to a point that he should have passed out, so when he stayed under water trying to break into a locked elevator just wasn't buyable at all, no matter what the reason was that he went under for.

Bond Girls: 10 -- Yowza!!! Best i've seen in any Bond movie.

Scenery: 9 -- Excellent, but TWINE beat it out. Moreover, there were no snowy mountain scenes with would have been a plus.

Bond: 9 -- Perfect for the job, just not as good as pierce brosnan in Goldeneye or Tomorrow Never Dies.
10/10
Daniel Craig as Bond? You better believe it!!
chinchiliman13 December 2006
If you've never seen a James Bond film, don't see this one first. If you do, the rest are going to seem like cartoons. This one is grittier, darker, and thankfully more realistic than any of its predecessors. Rather than turning Bond into some kind of superhero, Casino Royale does the magnificent job of returning him to the role that he deserves...a spy. Not since the days of Sean Connery has Bond been more alive. Mr. Connery is still my favourite, but only because I can't give that title to Craig based on 1 performance. But since he has already signed for 2 more, Mr. Connery's reign as champ is in serious jeopardy. Casino Royale has something for everyone - incredible action sequences, realistic and poignant dialogue, a moving love story, and cool (yet not ridiculously over the top) gadgets. But what sets this movie apart is the consequences. Death is not a minor occurrence and too many Bond movies spray death around and no one seems to care. Rather than brush it off because he is too cool for that (Connery), not bat an eye because he's too busy killing a dozen more people in a Rambo-style shoot-em up (Brosnan), or not noticing that people are dying Cu you're trying not to fall over (Moore), Daniel Craig shows us a Bond that has depth, emotion, and most of all fallibility. It is technically Bond's first mission so it was good to see him make mistakes. All I can say is that this movie opened on a Friday. I went to see it on Saturday and went Back to watch it again on Sunday. I have never gone to see a movie in the theaters on consecutive nights before and I plan on watching at least 2 more times before it goes to DVD. Tip of the cap to everyone involved in this one. Awesome job.
6/10
That was no bond at all
wkalka5 December 2006
OK good photography and some nice dialog do not make a good movie. No that was no bond only the first 10 min in the beginning, where they had to go with the flow and do some street climbing action

The rest of the action was crap, the love story horrible and no toys for boys. This movie goes along with all the last bad bond movies. The new actor is good and the first minutes it looked really promising, but then what a mistake ...

I really like the new actor, and the scenery was nice, but the love story part was so horrible. This bond had no special funny little toys, no Q at all, the car crashed on first use. No that was no bond, it was another action movie like 1001 we seen before .., we call it pop corn cinema but even that was not that entertaining... there will be a day, when a bond movie will rock but not this time ...

OK before I leave, the movie was not that bad and the new actor plays the role a lot better then the last, he has its own style maybe I was just expecting a lot more so I am disappointed, if I would not expected that I even would rate this movie higher ..... I really miss the boys with toys stuff that was bond always and foreever
10/10
So what if it's not like the other Bond films?
silverfrog1027 December 2006
I really wish people would stop comparing this Bond film to all the others. No, that's a bit hasty... there needs to be some comparison but it ought not to be judged on its relationship to the other films. Let's face it, the books were all written by the same guy but the films are comprised of different actors, directors and crew and are made in different eras for different audiences with each new reinvention. I wasn't expecting this film to be much like the others and it's all the better for it.

I quite liked Peirce Brosnan as Bond and Goldeneye was until now, for me, the best of the bunch. Like many I was sceptical about Daniel Craig but his gritty, dryly humorous and vulnerable Bond was a joy to behold. He's very different to the other Bonds and that's as it should be. This film stands alone largely on the back of his performance.

It opens with dark and unexpectedly gritty scenes and it's obvious from the beginning that this is a Bond in his infancy, so to speak... he has not yet earned his 00 status and his exchanges with M (brilliantly portrayed as always by the excellent Judi Dench) are electric and fascinating. When we charge through a building site with a very energetic Mr Craig in the pursuit of a villain the pace quickens and the film really shows us where it's going. These early scenes had me gripped despite the fact that this really wouldn't be my sort of film normally. The stunt work is incredible and somehow so much more realistic than the norm for Hollywood action scenes - hard to explain but the action is decidedly more raw and immediate than I have ever seen.

One thing I really love about the film is the way it combines this larger-than-life action with a script that is clever without ever trying too hard; the one-liners are just sublime but it never descends into the faintly farcical pseudo-comedy of some of its predecessors. The humour is there, and much needed, but never pantomimic or distracting. There is room in this script for so much to happen without bogging the audience down with detail, confusing red herrings and pointless plot twists. Indeed, there are actually few twists and turns and not very many characters, which is further testament to the skill on display - a simple concept is transformed into an engrossing film.

A movie that is largely about a small group of men playing poker really shouldn't be exciting and I expected the actual casino scenes, of which there are several, to be the most boring. Far from it; these were easily the mot enjoyable for me, providing a real opportunity to learn a bit about the characters, see their vulnerabilities and strengths and watch a contest unfold that is much deeper than fisticuffs can portray. Watching Mads Mikklesen as bad guy Le Chiffre and Daniel Craig in these exchanges is, for me, what cinema really is all about. Both men bring the right amount of intensity to their roles in these shots without hamming them up or playing them down. These powerful scenes are interspersed with some genuinely breathtaking set pieces and make the film canter along at a great pace; I certainly didn't feel it was too long.

Ultimately the best thing about this movie is the acting. Craig is spot-on in a role that has clearly been well crafted and thought out to suit his style and the wishes of the new film makers. Mikklesen is simply superb as a truly sadistic villain, managing to make him thoroughly dislikeable but altogether more human (and hence more scary) than any other Bond villain. One small complaint I have (and it is very small) is that he was not given enough screen time, although his ability to move from edgy, silent card shark to sadistic torturer is a work of genius and he therefore makes up the lack of screen time by putting in a performance of pure, solid quality. Eva Green is so much more than the token helpless female and the integrity she brought to the part was touching. She could easily have been a dislikeable character but Green's depiction of her vulnerability clashing with her harder edge made her so believable. The chemistry between her and Craig was palpable and their relationship was very believable.

Given that this movie had just over two hours to make it's point I think it did so remarkably well, allowing the characters to be introduced and then unfold in ways that most films don't find the time to do. The plot is fairly simple and bounces along at an agreeable pace but the characterisation and relationships unfolding around it are the film's true gems. Definitely one of the highlights of the year and a welcome break from the mould. Brilliant.
6/10
This might beat recent Bond movies, but don't forget how low the bar was set
digitig-12 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Firstly I must say that from the opening moments I was convinced that Daniel Craig was Bond -- he had all the ruthlessness, cunning and panache that marks Bond out from the pack. OK, later in the film we discovered that he sucks at playing someone in love, but he shouldn't have had to; Bond has pretty near always treated women as disposable, and that's the way Fleming wrote him in Casino Royale.

Long before that, though, I'm suffering from a feeling of being lost in time. This is the start of Bond's career? Then it must be set before Dr. No, but it looks remarkably like the early 21st century, not the 1950s or early 60s.

Any film based on a book has to deviate from that book; they're different media, different things work. That much I accept. But this film is bizarre in the things that it chooses to keep and in what it chooses to lose. It's lost the sense of time and place, it throws away a lot of Vesper's complexity and motivation, and ignores a lot of Bond's self doubt. But it keeps the mishandled pace. The movie keeps stalling, struggling to restart and stalling again, in relentless misguided fidelity to the book which does the same. I kept thinking "Oh, good; it's finishing. I can go home now" only to have the plot splutter back into life.

OK, so it's a popcorn movie, so I shouldn't judge it too harshly (had it had pretensions to art-house I'd have given it just 1 or 2 out of 10), but there's no shortage of action adventures far better conceived and executed than this.
10/10
Fantastic
fmartin232326 November 2006
A brilliant present-day adaption of Ian Fleming's first Bond novel.

From start to finish this is the change Bond needed. Congrats to all who were involved. 007 is back on top of the action (spy) genre. Thanks for a great movie. I guess it's true Bond does live twice.

As for the particulars, I loved how the action scenes were done by human beings. From the opening bathroom scene to the crane scene to even the stair battle, James Bond and the villains breathed life into each scene. Nothing can replace a human being taking a punch or making a death defying leap. To add some background to this comment: I was really into the Die another Day plot until Bond's car disappeared and he rode down an Iceberg-fueled tidal wave.

As for the acting, At first I wasn't quite buying Vesper's dialog in this movie, Eva Green seemed out of character. But in the end her portrayal of a mentally unstable Vesper Lynd was nails. Both Bond and Lynd pulled off their mutual attraction to each other just like Fleming wrote. In all reality "Casin Royale" was a love story centered around a lot of death and destruction. But even after the fight scenes and action were over, the movie viewer could believe the the passion Bond felt for his leading lady.

My favorite scene: SPOILER WARNING Bond and Vesper at the table after he beats Le Chiffre at poker. The entire scene from Bond and Lynd's dialog to the text message to the kidnapping were exactly as I imagined them when I read FLeming's book.

Go See it... You only live Twice!
6/10
Beautiful cinematics but uninteresting story
kim-otto-daetz2 October 2018
This movie is a real eye candy. Packed with great shots, atmospheric colors plus loads of action and destruction. Unfortunately the storyline is rather a guide from one action scene to another while it offers no depth and doesn't really get you hooked. There is no real tension curve as the movie shows Bond hunting down one more or less relevant criminal after another and in the end it becomes overbloated with forced 'twists'. This movie seems more like the Transformers 3 of agent thrillers than the millenium classic many people want it to be.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Truer to the book version of Bond
finleymarkh26 November 2006
Sean Connery will always be the face of James Bond. He looks the way James Bond is supposed to look. I believe the first director cast him based on his "dark, cruel good looks".

Craig acts the way James Bond is supposed to act. He's mean, he's nasty, he's got a chip on his shoulder. This is in large part to the writing, but Craig just looks right doing it.

Moore never looked right doing the violence. Brosnan got better at it as the films went along.

I think Craig is going to make an excellent Bond, based on this film. If he grows in the role the way Brosnan did, he is a cinch to be my second favorite Bond. And he may challenge Connery, which I would have called unthinkable before this film.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
2006 Bond
cass1810-123 November 2006
I knew Daniel Craig would be good and he lived up to expectations. He is the 2006 Bond - forget all the others (yes even Sean) - this is the 21st Century bang up to date with the character as he would be in this day and age. Suave and sophisticated - ha! ha! whoever would last 2 seconds if they played it like Sean!! I am old enough to have seen the first Bond in 1962 and thought that no-one could play the part like Sean Connery and at the time no-one could and hasn't since in my view! He epitomised Bond as a spy (as they were known in those days!) in the 60s but let's face it he needed a facelift - we are now in 2006 unless you didn't know it! Come on all you moaners who want to live in the past - get yourself into the present and understand how Craig makes the part his own in an up to date version which as I see it is as bang up to date as it could be and Daniel Craig IS James Bond without a doubt.

Cass
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Perfectly Formed
victoriamerr30 November 2006
I haven't had much interest in Bond films in along time, but now I avidly await Craig's next performance - he is an exceptional actor. I was a fan of Sean Connery, but now we have Craig who is definitely a Bond for our time and on a par.Very refreshing - the action, the humour, real passion and energy, plus a classy Bond girl.

It had me laughing out loud, clutching my chest, clenching my butt,shedding a few tears, plus eight sneezes to boot... I recommend seeing it on a weekday afternoon, on your own, with a large popcorn and coke - you will definitely come out with a massive grin on your face.

Bond has arrived!
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
If you miss this on the big screen, well then.......
kegsstarr5519 November 2006
I am an avid bond fan. I have got all the movies in a special box-set and have watched them continuously since receiving my first one. Up until today when i had the fortune of going to see Casino Royale, i thought that Sean Connery and roger Moore were so cool, and bond was the best. Now that i have seen Daniel Craig perform as bond, i have realised that not only is he the best bond by a mile, but this movie is instantly in my top 10 movies, not bonds, but of all time. The Casino Royale team have created a movie that has all the elements that one wants to see in a film. The casting is great, but most of all the action scenes are ones that you can watch and have your words taken away. Bond has now been updated into a 21st century character who we can all admire. You have not lived until you have seen this film, which i believe could easily make it up to the top quarter of the top 100 list and rival any other action movie to come. Go out to the cinema this weekend and book you ticket, because missing the chance to see Casino Royale on the big screen will be one of the biggest mistakes of your movie life.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Daniel finally gets what he deserves
tetsulovespunk8 February 2007
Don't bother for the noise coming from the GAGA fans of predecessor( I do consider Bruce to be a outstanding actor in view of his performance after departing with James Bond). Daniel just gets what he deserves after a long year of excellent performance in a series of similar films including Layer Cake and Munich. I'd say he is the best James Bond under this circumstance of actor choice and the best James Bond in history(of no exaggaration). As a Chinese fan of Daniel Craig, I saw a brilliant re-start of James Bond series movies as early as Daniel landed on the Britain with the British Army. Though not as handsome as his precedent, Daniel gave a totally new image of Bond to the whole world. Moreover, he rendered Bond obtained a great deal of vitality and manliness. To be honest,I think everyone who really loves movie should love Casino Royale and Daniel. Because it felt so real and pressing when I sat in the cinema with my friends choked by the fight at the beginning of the movie. James Bond vs. YAMASAKi!~~~~ The fight is face to face striking, and the story is so intricate than it feels like a Christoph Nolan movie (LOL!) I am happy to see the score of IMDb for Casino Royale.I am happy to see Daniel get the recognition. James Bond will be more charming and fascinating because of Daniel Craig!
8/10
It's Bond as a human, isn't that amazing!
sheiban-s3 December 2006
I saw Casino Royale on opening night and even though it was missing Moneypenny and Q, the characters we have come to know and love, I have to say that it was a good movie. We see 007 receive the 007, and he gets busy on his mission. This is a younger version of James Bond, and he is a character that we can all relate to, he's not a suave and smooth agent who enjoys his vodka martinis shaken, not stirred. He's Bond, as a human! He makes mistakes, he runs through walls, he trips and falls, he creates havoc when there shouldn't be havoc. This is a character that we can all relate to! I recommend seeing this film when you get a chance and also, stop wailing on Daniel Craig, he's not THAT blonde!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond is back...for the very first time
datrius27 November 2006
Wow. I am nothing short of blown away by "Casino Royale." There's something to be said for a movie that, in a franchise so successful that people are almost guaranteed to see the movie anyway, could stand alone as an epic action film with a great plot line.

What was great about Casino Royale was that it was much more gritty and realistic. There's no "super-villian" or random Ogre with a metal mouth walking around, trying to blow up Russia with a giant diamond. On the contrary, because it's that much more realistic, it makes the film all the more appealing.

And what can I say. The opening and ending scenes are brilliant flashes of sheer genius. Watch for yourself.

Excellent job.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bond must stop terror financier Le Chiffre's continued banking operations.
purvisa-118 November 2006
I have long held From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only as my two favorites. Both are lean films with true espionage plots, balance of power issues, and (relatively) little interference from Q Branch.

Casino Royale puts them, along with the rest of the series (and I have them all) to shame. I am a fan, but I have never before felt a rush like this one provides, repeatedly. Better, Bond's wit is drier than his drinks, and darker than ever before.

What truly sets Casino Royale apart, however, is that Martin Campbell has created a film. It happened to be a Bond film, of course, but first and foremost it is a story told on the big screen, and on deserving (as some before have not been) of that large canvas.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
This was Fantastic, THE BEST BOND FILM FOR DECADES.
matt-ja20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
First off, let me start where the movie starts. I was immediately worried by the peculiar silence after the yawning lion, particularly since the gun barrel sequence has become so synonymous with the bond series. However, regardless of that, I thought the black and white fight scene stood to demonstrate the new demeanour of Craig - Gritty, harsh and intense. Campbell used this as a precursor moment to embody the prequel, and since this is the (first) Bond, and has a duty to explain how he achieves OO status, it replaces the usual gun barrel thrill. Then that gorgeous title sequence kicks in! Wow. And we get the gun barrel sequence too, just at a different point. But Whoa... Cornells caterwauling theme song was just awful (although good title) and where are all the teasingly silhouetted nudes??? Frankly, I didn't mind much, considering the graphics of adversaries dissolving into hearts, aces and clubs was quite certainly the tits of all title sequences. After that, any reservations about the choice of Craig, and the concern that this film really needed to boost the somewhat fledging series were not so much answered, but blinking well blown out of the water. I was enthralled and ready for more refreshing dimensions to the character and the wider scope of the film, and boy did I get it. I admit, I raised an eyebrow too when I heard Craig got the part; and although looks were definitely an improvement on hammy, paunchy old Moore, (although I still liked him a great deal) something seemed wrong, I grew up with smooth, sexy and professional, altogether Brosnan Bond and this was drastically different. I loved it. The opening Free running chase scene is a defining moment in the film, hinting at what was to come. We see no flashy gadgets, instead we see Bond raw, and there's a good reason for this; OO7 hasn't been truly sculpted yet. He's just been promoted, we are watching someone turn into Bond before our eyes, rather than leap fully formed onto the screen with a bow tie and a raised eyebrow. Craig is a tough, gripping, but also hesitant Bond at the onset. His character development is well paced, all credit to Campbell for that. There's a real sense of a learning curve and mood with Craig's interpretation, unlike Brosnans immutably fervent, suave, but emolliently absent character. I noticed that Craig seems like two different people when fighting and talking. He's brutishly silent and really puts in acting effort when doing the action sequences, but then enjoyably human with his dialogue. The bedroom scenes have been excised to some extent, but are demure, passionate and reflect his more impassioned personality. Blue eyes? Blonde? I really came out of it not minding in the least. His rugged looks suit the character and the tone of the movie perfectly, and it's linked to his chronological development as Bond anyway; he becomes more refined towards the end, where he utters his trademark tune. Bond, James Bond. As for the other parts, well Vesper Lynd's defiant gaze does credit to Eva Green. I felt Dame Judi didn't have her best run as 'M' here, although It was nice to see her back all the same. Le Chiffre has a distinctive element to him, he's real enough, but memorable. What an cold, sadistic glare Mads Mikkelsen fired at the camera! The scenes at the casino table made me remember what a true Bond villain should epitomise. The action's all good, enjoyable, inventive and classically amusing in that 'Can only be Bond' way. Campbell definitely remembered his Golden(eye) touch here! The perfect casino setting is quite well exploited, if not drawn out, however, generally it feels well proportioned. Of course the whole film was a little drawn out, and Campbell kept us waiting, then gave us a bit more, and a bit more, and then chopped it off, no tapered clean ending. He made us want more. I would say, as a reader of the novels, the length was due in part to the effort of keeping true to the Fleming plot. To be pragmatic, it's nice to get my moneys worth at the cinema instead of finding the credits scrolling after just 90 minutes. I thought this Film had the best storyline of the last 6 or so movies. It had an overwhelming flow of espionage and true spy/surveillance quality that we all reminisce about, but have missed in the years since Connery. And Craig I think we've probably exhausted the invisible car thing a while ago, but compare it to Casino Royale and its indisputably more believable and more engaging. That's what a film should do, right? Engage with you. I was still engaged two days after I left the cinema. The edge really is in the realism; the lack of hallmark gadgets, while a loss in some ways, is more than made up for in the Acting of Craig and counterparts, The locations, believable plot and the refreshingly sharp tone of the Film. We are given a totally modern movie, with enough original nods towards the hallmark casino, black tie setting that has been forgone in so many recent movies. I always thought Bond's Tuxedo Moments in previous films were woefully short. Not so here! I relished the abundance of it. And as for those gorgeous Sony electronics that feature so prominently... They make up for Laser Rolexes. Product Placement? Blah Blah... can you imagine Bond with a Dell Inspiron? It's all good, Sony own the Film company anyway. Saken and stirred i was indeed when the Aston was trashed :D, not quite matched by the ball whipping. And one of the funniest Bond quips ever. Lets have more of the same in future productions, but one wonders whether they can now surpass Casino Royale.

Well who'd have thought it? Daniel Craig, what a debut, you were spectacular.
10/10
Could be the Best Bond Ever! Triumphant!
gkoodray007-13 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What an amazing Bond film. Just when disappearing cars and computer generated surfing on gel-like waters in Die Another Day made us wonder how worse things could get, we get Casino Royale. Some of us thought that perhaps the creators were losing their way, trying to please too many masters with poor James Bond in the middle of it all. But, in Casino Royale, the cartoon rendering ends and we get the kind of Bond you'd think his job would create.

Daniel Craig is magnificent in this role. He is undoubtedly Bond from the moment he appears on the screen and it just gets better - especially after repeated viewings. It's hard to believe this guy was as roughed up as he was upon being named to take on the role (mostly for not being "pretty" enough).

After multiple screenings -- and having watched all of the other Bonds as many times, it's hard to find fault with this movie. It's the longest ever made, but races through it's 2:24 running time. Artistic license fast forwards his mission to terrorism and not the cold war, even though this is supposed to be Bond's beginning, but that setting probably works better for most viewers today than younger people who may not even be familiar with the cold war.

Judi Dench is, well, her same masterful self as Bond's rather reluctant superior "M" -- and we're treated to as much of her as we have in any other film.

Gadget and comedy fans beware. This isn't your father's Bond. This guy is all business and 100 percent testosterone. There aren't any punchlines. No Bond shouting "sit" to a 700 lb Bengal tiger or apologetic mad Nazi-like hit man explaining how embarrassed he is to ask Bond for the security PIN on his car. This Bond is more reminiscent of the intense character that the under-appreciated Timoth Dalton gave us twice, but just a little more so.

We can feel Bond's demons and unhappiness. The fight scenes make you feel like you're in the middle of them. The time spent at the casino table races and is full of great suspense. That's particularly rewarding since so many ardent Bond fans wondered how you can treat so much card table time on film in today's attention deficit environment. And the film abounds with moments where you might nudge the person next to you warning "watch this." Bond's woman, Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green is just great, as are all in this cast. But, this film showcases, both literally and physically, Daniel Craig who, with his performance, exclaims through his performance that this role is his for years to come.

What has probably struck me the most as a Bond fan of more than 40 years is how the franchise creators were able to strip down what these films have come to and make this movie so well from top to bottom.

I might have to put this just below Goldfinger since that was my first and a sentimental favorite. But, aside from that, it's hard to think of a better Bond. It's also gratifying that there is finally an entry into this series deserving of the Casino Royale moniker that we have heard about for so long.

To the makers of this film, we can't wait until the next one, but can't imagine what you can do for an encore. Welcome back, James!
9/10
Make way for MR. CRAIG.
ArjunPadhya8 December 2006
As a die – hard bond fan, when I went to see this movie first day first show, the anxiety was not to see a brand new bond movie, but it was to watch Mr. Craig perform. Right from the point where he was pronounced the new bond, there have been two groups of people. One said this was not good. He just did not seem right. And another was of just opposite opinion. I and my wife were of the first opinion and I was very eager to see that I was right.

To my surprise, right from the first frame, it was clear that Mr. Craig has hit the mark and we were wrong. Though, the beginning of the film in black and white is of no meaning and has some strange impact, as the film proceeds, it takes the fans to a roller-coaster ride with state of the art chase and fight scenes. After the end of the opening sequence, I was just asking my self one question.." Who was that man Bond was chasing? Was he made of rubber?" Unlike any other bond films, this time, the bond is real. His feet are on the ground. There are no gadgets. At least, they are limited. Bond is portrayed as human with human strengths and fight scenes are more realistic than any bond movie. I mean, I could hardly believe that Roger Moore was quick enough to beat the knife – killer from Circus in OCTOPUSSY.

Fans were not sure this time of what to expect. Even in the promos, the care had been taken by the team that they don't reveal the actual content of the film. We all went to see brand new gadgets and brand new bond, and we got only one.

How do you describe James Bond? I say, MR. 100%. Everything about him is 100%. He is 100% lucky, 100% fit, 100% handsome and bla bla…a character that we all know could not be in real. And we all pretend to at least behave like sometimes in our lives.

You will find nothing of above in our new bond. He gets hurt, his face has bruises this time, M has a little or no admiration for him and she goes to a point where we could fell she has extreme dislike for him. His girl friend/s are both not so attractive and sexy this time and he uses mobile phones like us. Very well on the ground.

What is amazing about this is that he still does it. We still get that rush that we used to get while watching any other bond flick. Could you imagine any bother bond climbing a plane ladder and jumping on the truck, and still it looks real? Naaah….

Sean Connery is still THE BOND, but being physically super fit and chasing the bad guys on the feet like Jackie Chan, were not one of the virtues of bond. Roger Moore, George Lanzby, Dalton and Brosnan…all are superb, no doubt about it. But no one could do it like Mr. Craig. With due respect, imagine Bronson running at a full speed like a gentleman and then setting his tie…he could look just good, but still not like this bond who wears designer t – shirts and short sleeve shits and rocks the screen. And he looked just splendid in designer sun glasses.

Daniel Craig has a god like body and takes the entire image of Bond to another, upper level. The viewer could believe that happens in the movie and I think this is the first time, the bond has been shown like this.

Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson have done a perfect job as producers. I was sure that Mr. Craig was not gonna make it and Barbara is going to change the bond for one more time. But the credit of the entire movie goes to Martin Campbell who has done it again after GOLDEN EYE.

It would be unfair to think of this movie without martin Campbell. The real hero of the film is him. He has done it well and has done it twice. Hats off for Mr. Campbell.

But the soundtrack is a complete disaster. YOU KNOW MY NAME is nothing compares to THE GOLDEN EYE, GOLD FINGER , TOMORROW NEVER DIES or DIE ANOTHER DAY. To the best of my knowledge, this is the second time after A VIEW TO A KILL – DURAN DURAN that male artist has performed a title track.

Eva Green is OK. Not as impressive as Daniel Craig, but OK. In fact, thinking again, she is a mistake. Not even her, but the other girl who has a brief appearance, is also not up to the mark. I hardly believed that this was the series that has given us divas like URSULA ANDRESS, TANYA ROBERTS, BARBARA BACH, CAROLINE MUNRO, BERRY and DENISE RICHARDS. All these were far far better bond girls. To this date, as per my opinion, MAUD ADAMS is the best bond girl.

Even on the screen, it was clear that bond could have many more beautiful girls. Falling for an accountant was nothing but lack of options.( I think this is exactly what the director wants to convey..:))There is no on – screen chemistry with EVA.

In short, Ms.Barbara has succeeded and apart from all the lacunas, the movie is visual feast and a must watch. Daniel Craig has arrived, officially. The undersigned was never so happy to be wrong!
10/10
Now, that's Bond, James Bond
Mr_Arcus_Tangens26 February 2007
This movie is based on the novel "Casino Royale" by Ian Fleming, that I really like, because the novel is full of tension, spy games, unexpected twists and of course REAL Mr. Bond, secret agent 007, not James Bond/Bananaman/Batman/Superman.

Movie is great, superb, because it stays very, very, very true to the story of the novel. Also, all the laws of the physics were not broken, like in the previous Bond movies. All characters were perfectly developed. Craig is perfect Bond, true to the vision of Ian Fleming, Dench in this movie is perfect M, Bond girls are absolutely gorgeous and not there just to be in love with Bond, and finally bad guys are not idiots.

This is the greatest Bond movie ever, simple as that.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
overall good movie
pedro_dro20 November 2006
I am a big james bond fan and have watch all of them. This movie definitely lived up to the hype and daniel craig does an excellent job as his portrayal of bond. The movie had an overall feel of the old james bond movies which was great and was balanced well with the new technology they use like cells. The only problem I had with it was that their was not enough explanation of the stories but I guess it helped to make it more realistic in the long run. So, see it if your a bond fan, u will not be disappointed! And as for people who are not bond fans? I still believe you should see it as it is a good spy movie and also has a decent love story for the ladies.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally, he made it!
luiferdiaz-19 December 2006
Yes, he is blond. Certainly, shorter than all Bonds before him. Probably, not as good looking as Brosnan in tux (but better than anyone without it). Nevertheless, he captured the essence that I've always imagined in the MI-6 agent. Colder than ice... more than any other, charismatic, though, extremely self-confident, funny just when needed. From far, best Bond ever About the film, great production, very good story. The gadgets and the necessary beautiful car, were great but didn't take the lead, and an end that explained many things and that left many others for our imagination. P.S. Does anybody remember any another film in which Bond doesn't end in bed with a girl at the final scene?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best New Bond
fyi-612 November 2007
Minimal...I agree Shawn...and it works. This Bond kept me involved all the way through, at 145, it didn't seem that long to me, I was wanting more in fact. There was a balance at all levels, exotic bkgds, co-actors and the star, except for the poker scenes...this bond is more internal than most bonds, especially compared to Connery (the king of Bonds) who never showed any emotion, only when he grimaces when being hit. None of the previous Bonds could have realistically done all the action in this movie, and that is what we want, action, smart action isn't it? If I had to complain, I'd wish for better ending. Looking forward to the next one indeed.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Quite possibly the best!
boswell-524 January 2008
And I will not apologize to all the hardcore Sean Connery fans for that statement. Sean was great but the legacy of 007 does not begin and end with him. If you have read the books you will find this movie to be the closest representation yet. Daniel Craig is very convincing and this movie was very well crafted overall. I've been a fan since the beginning and this is arguably the best yet. Much less of the outrageous gadget stuff. Accent is on the action and it is much more gritty than any before. Humour kept to an acceptable minimum. I would like to see this team stay together for at least several films to establish the new feel of this era's 007.

If you are a fan of the Brosnan films- you just don't get it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This is how it should be.
s-fuge16 February 2007
The best bond film by far, great action, does what it says on the tin and more.

Forget Connery (who until now was the best), Moore(who I personally thought was terrible), and all the other would be pretenders to the throne, Daniel Craig is Bond.

This Bond character and film is not corny like some of the old movies, this truly is a modern action film that would compare and surpass many in the action genre.

Daniel Craig gives a top notch performance and we get a far better insight into the character that is James Bond.

Can't wait to see a follow up to this, would recommend this film as definitely worth seeing.

By the way prior to seeing this I was of the mind set here we go another pointless 007 movie, how wrong one can be.
7/10
3/4 of a great Bond movie
wozza109 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It seems, from viewing comments, that whether you like this Bond movie depends on whether you think Bond movies are about gadgets or not. Or whether you realise Bond was originally a character in a series of novels or just a movie character. If you think Roger Moore or Die Another Day are great Bond then you will not like Casino Royale. Why? Well, in my opinion, because this films is good entertainment set in reality which revolves around an actual story and not a collection of action sequences strung together with silly jokes, daft gadgets (which give away things that have to happen to Bond as soon as he's given them as they generally had such limited use) and sexy ladies.

This, though, in still not a truly great Bond movie. For an hour and 45 minutes or so, up and including the brutal torture sequence, it really is right up there. It's tight, tense, well constructed scripted and acted... Bond even has to do some espionage; something I can't really remember him doing for a long long time. Yet after the surprise (to people who've not read the book) death of the (apparent) main villain the wheels sadly fall off. While the sudden introduction of a new villain who's motivations never become clear (a brief phone call with M does not suffice) is a major part of the stumbling the real problem lies in the sudden inexplicable change of Bond and Vespa's entire personalities. Nothing either of them do ever rings true and because of this the final act of the movie just falls flat and, for the only time in this particular Bond adventure, just seems like an excuse to have another big action sequence.

Still, there's much to be enjoyed in the first two acts. The free running chase sequence at the start is one of the very best action sequences I've seen (although it's so cool the film can never reach the same level of adrenaline) and Craig truly makes an excellent Bond, even if he doesn't have the clichéd suave look.

So, if you want Roger Moore silliness or generic Bond then your chance of enjoying this particular adventure are probably lower than those who want a return to Bond as a cold hearted spy.

As a final side note, the change from Baccara (in the novel) to Texas Hold 'Em is generally well done as it means you don't have to waste 5 minutes of screen time as someone explains how Baccara's played. But for those who know poker (and especially how it's always portrayed in movies) you can work out exactly what hands everyone has from the start. And I really wish they'd have had some "real" poker hands where people win with a pair instead of massive hands every time. The final hand in particular is ludicrous with a flush, 2 full houses and a straight flush all in the same hand. How Roger Moore!
10/10
A Decidedly Different Bond
kathyselden21 December 2006
One thing is certain: this is a damn good film. The black and white opening scene had me hooked from the start. One things that sticks out for me as being brilliant is the gun-barrel shot, which was done in a surprisingly original manner. Although I liked the movie from the beginning, I hadn't quite warmed up to Daniel Craig as Bond just yet. But any doubts I had were eliminated by that fantastic shot and made me see that he really IS pulling himself off as the famous James Bond. Watch it, even if only for the fantastic opening sequence and to see the way they've done that amazing gun-barrel shot!

The cinematography in this film is beyond belief. It shows beauty and danger, two key elements of a Bond film. There is one scene which, alone, should earn cinematographer Phil Meheux an Academy Award. Not a nomination, a win. To give you an idea of how good it is: the entire theater was gasping for air, myself included. We all seemed to feel as though we were up there with Bond on a narrow pole, thousands of feet up in the air with nothing to support us, nothing to break the fall, just sparkling blue water- which, on impact from that height, would feel more like cement than H20. I once worked in the Sky Tower, the tallest building in the Southern Hemisphere. I worked at the highest part, and I never once felt afraid when I looked down. But, let me tell you, looking up at that movie screen during that scene, I- and the everyone else in that theater- was afraid! I've never felt like that while watching a movie, and that's saying something. My friend and I are both film students, and even we were impressed. We're at the point in our studies where we have been somewhat "desensitized" towards special effects and fancy camera work, but, honest to God, both of us had our mouths open. If you want to see amazing cinematography- WATCH THIS FILM.

Casino Royale is different to the Bond films most people know and love, and a lot has to do with the surprisingly good Daniel Craig. Daniel Craig is Bond the man, not yet Bond the legend. He gives the character an element of humanity without being overbearing. From his portrayal we see Bond as he is, stripped down to his bare nature. He's sharp as a razor, deadly accurate in (almost) everything he does, and stubborn. But it's his arrogance that is the key element of his nature. He is sure of himself and everything that he does, to a fault. Thankfully, there is non of that "hidden, soft center" stuff that a lot of film makers try to use in order to add depth to a male character. Had they toyed with the essence of his character, they would have ended up with a catastrophic mess and even more furor than that initially caused by the surprising casting decision. Try as you might to figure Bond out, you'll only find that what you see is what you get: this, particularly, is what I have always loved about him.

Even if you haven't seen Casino Royale, you are likely to have noticed the furor that developed around the decision to cast an actor that was A)blond, B)relatively unknown, and C)definitely not the ideal Bond type. He's not the mockingly charming Roger Moore, and he most certainly is not the suave, handsome Pierce Brosnan. But thank God they didn't make the same mistake as they did in casting the even less known, less charming, and less British George Lazenby in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

The absence of Bond's promiscuity is actually an inspired choice because it makes the character more "real". People complain of Bond's unrealistic ability to bed various women (sometimes all at once) and still get the job done. Here they get their wish: Bond is at the beginning of his legendary career, still more "real man" than hero, focusing more on work than on play.

The film's only shortcomings are, ironically, the similarities it shares with the doomed On Her Majesty's Secret Service. At 144 minutes, the exceedingly long running time beat OHMSS' record for the longest running Bond film by about 4 minutes. I enjoyed the film, but during the last half hour I thought that the film was about to end 4 times before it finally did. Bond's relationship with Vesper Lind, like his relationship with Tracy Di Vincenzo in OHMSS had the potential to be a real mood killer. There is a painfully noticeable lack of cool gadgets. Call me shallow, but millions of fans will agree that the gadgets are a significant part of the Bond experience. And last, but not least, the lack of exceedingly beautiful women. Bond Girls have taken many a breath away, but Diana Rigg (OHMSS), Eva Green and Caterina Murino (from Casino Royale) are rather average when compared to the likes of Barbara Bach,Maud Adams, Lois Chiles, and Carole Bouquet. The women in Casino Royal look pretty good, but not exactly breath-taking.Diana Rigg is cool, but no amazing beauty. Eva Green just looks like an average-looking girl with A LOT of make up on (which is what she is, really). And even with all the make up, she only manages to look "good".

Despite it's shortcomings, I must conclude that Casino Royale is an excellent film and definitely a must-see. What makes it stands out for me is, even with the absence of some of the most well-known elements of a Bond Film, this movie still took my breath away. Had it not been the latest addition to the Bond series, it still would have earned a 10/10 as a stand alone film. And that's what I'm giving it: 10/10! The question remains: what will they do next with Daniel Craig as James Bond? I can't wait to find out!
1/10
This movie was awful
djsubtronic29 November 2006
1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.1. It was awful. 2. It was truly awful. 3. It reeked. 4. It tasted like sh*t. 5. It was abysmal. 6. It was "royale-ly" heinous. 7. I do not recommend this movie. 8. Nancy. 9. See below. 10. All of the above.
8/10
Far from
moviescore-18 January 2007
I've always had a somewhat schizophrenic relationship to James Bond. One part of me thinks he's the ultimate cool. The other part defines him - and particularly the majority of the films - as corny. So when everyone claimed that "finally, here is the ultimate 007, back to the roots", that first part of me thought... "so there will be no cool one-liners?", and the second half answered "wonderful, there will be no corny one-liners!...

Anyway, this is a hell of an action movie. Martin Campbell's direction is super-tight, and the editing by Stuart Baird is absolutely first-rate. There are a number of truly spectacular action set-pieces here, my favorite being the extremely hectic airport sequence. David Arnold, who wrote his first Bond score ten years ago (time flies!), adds a lot of excitement with traditional but extremely effective action music (and the love theme is such a beautiful nod to John Barry's most beloved 007 songs).

Finally, we have mr Craig - Daniel Craig. Yes... he is p-e-r-f-e-c-t. Those cool/corny one-liners Roger Moore and Remington Steele (oops) delivered have been replaced by subtle glimpses in the eye and by intelligent dialog. Thank you, Daniel Craig, for curing my 007 schizophrenia - we are now one whole who knows that James Bond is an elegant action hero and one that deserves a place in the 21st century!
8/10
Not so unlike other Bond films
benjamin149219 November 2006
Before I went to see this last night, I did my homework on IMDb. The recurring themes from most posters seemed to revolve around pointing out the vast departures from previous Bonds or Bond films. I do not, however, concur.

First off, Craig is nothing short of excellent as James Bond. My point of reference, as with most Bond aficionados, is Sean Connery. Craig may even pull off the combination of suaveness and grittiness a little better.

Next up - the Bond girls. The first one (Catalina Murino playing Sorange) that appears is a character right out of most of the other Bond films - the sultry wife of the bad guy. Now the second Bond girl - Eve Green playing Vesper Lynd - is an entirely different story. We actually get some character development, a great script, and a little insight into Bond's character as well.

And what would a Bond film be without the gadgets? Reading the posts, I was under the impression that this would be an entirely gadget-less Bond film, which would qualify as a vast departure. However, there are plenty of gadgets - just no "Q" in the secret lab - and nothing bordering on ridiculous.

Now for the reason I rated it an 8 and not higher. It was a little longer than it needed to be. And it still had a classic campy Bond scene with a Bond girl riding a white horse on the beach.
10/10
Anyone else confused
imagee2322 November 2006
I don't get it. Bond gets his double 00 status for the first time in this film, and is a rookie and blah blah all that... yet the movie takes place in 2006... are we as the audience supposed to do away altogether with the fact that there were James Bond movies before all of this and he was a double 00 in them? Or am I missing some kind of connection. I am fully aware that this is an adaptation of the first James Bond novel ever written, but the movie in no way was a prequel to the past James Bond films. Perhaps this is sort of like Batman Begins? Either way I liked the movie, and I wanted to dislike Craig but since seeing the movie I really have no reason to. Can't wait till the next one.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Blonde Non-Brosnan Bond.
jye_bur19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well, I have finally lived down the shame. I was one of the vast minority who had never seen a Bond movie. Until now. No, I can't participate in your arguments on how the 'blonde Bond', Daniel Craig compares to the previous actors like Connery, Brosnan or Moore. And I like that because I can view Casino Royale objectively, and without any basis of comparison

The movie is great. Daniel Craig is suave, stylish and has a sense of humour drier than a summer drought. His partnership with the stunning Vesper Lynd - played by Eva Green - is played out nicely, starting with civil disdain and moving from there with a nice little twist at the end. Le Chiffre, the odd-eyed bad guy is a beautifully cold villain, and all the other supporting characters are perfectly constructed.

Characters aside, the locations are breathtaking. The movie brings you exotic locations from the Bahamas to Venice, Italy. The architecture is great, and plays a crucial part in the ending.

The movie moves at a good pace, though bits are hard to follow at times. Like for example, how exactly are all the villains are connected? That question, for me, required a bit of thinking and some research. Besides that, every scene is as fast or as suspenseful as needed, and nothing gets boring. The car chase is a bit mundane as car chases go, yet the final roll is spectacular and, I think, record-breaking in the film industry.

All in all, this is an excellent movie and a must-see for any Bond fan, and even if you're like me and just wanted to see one of them, to see what the fuss is about. If that's the case, then it may even whet your appetite for more.....
7/10
A better Bond.
mattmatthew80820 November 2006
It is often in the superhero genre in comics that decades of hokeyness precedes reinvention of a classic character by a writer that refuses to write by 'what is' but rather 'what could be.' Such was what Miller did for Batman, and what Moore did for the Swamp Thing.

With James Bond, however, it starts with a book that already had greater character depth, followed by movies which took mere sound bites of the character and created a formulaic Bond which remained largely unchanged for decades. Casino Royale, however, marks a return to its roots.

This Bond is still suave and smooth but not ridiculously so - there are still obvious chinks in his armor. He plays the role of secret agent inasmuch the same way as Newman played Fast Eddie in the Hustler against Gleason's Minnesota Fats - insecure, needing to prove something to himself - but the kind of insecurity that's often mistaken for overconfidence.

While it's a much better Bond, it's far from being a perfect movie. There are love interest scenes that could've been cut in half, or cut out completely. The film attempts to rationalize the purpose of the love interest as relating to the plot, but it feels tacked on - it would have better served the film if it retained a high level of sexual tension, but without succumbing to the lovey-doveyness of it.

All in all, Craig is a good Bond. I enjoyed his work in Road to Perdition as Connor. It's nice to see a Bond that is far more 'real,' than his predecessors.
8/10
Well done, Mr Bond
ajgorek17 November 2006
What a relief... The new 007 movie was one of the anticipated films of the year. Fortunately it was worth waiting for.

Daniel Craig is superb in this character. I think he fit the role better than Brosnan, he actually IS a new Bond (I always thought Pierce was only a temporary one).

The story is more realistic, without too much politic emphasis (it might be a fault for some watchers), and too many gadgets (lack of Q is a little miss;)). The whole thing keep the suspense, it's one of the best 007 stories.

Acion is incredible, top pitch film-making.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best Bond to date
m_jam_s_ray4 February 2007
I am not the biggest Bond fan in the world but this take on the franchise is the best yet. I sat on the edge of my seat almost the entire movie, I was even about to start applauding at one time. The performance from Daniel Craig just blew my mind, everyone that doubted his capability must be convinced, he IS Bond.

The title sequence is beautifully animated and Chris Cornells "You know my name" is, according to me, the best Bond theme ever.

I can't write comment on a Bond movie without mentioning the car, and what a car, it's absolutely beautiful and the roar when it started sent shivers down my spine.

Now you can only hope that number 22 will be as good as this one, and with Craig in the role chances are good.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Glorious Rebirth
beamerm32 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'll preface this by saying I'm not much of a Bond fan. I feel the old movies have aged poorly and the recent ones were too mindless. The Connery ones are still rightfully worth watching, but they dwindle from there, down to the tedious Timothy Dalton ones. I feel Pierce Brosnon fit the character perfectly, but I didn't think the character fit today perfectly.

I was tired of the suave, debonair ladies man. These men don't exist very readily today. They're relics, for better or worse.

And I was tired of the puns. Oh God, the puns. Like many, I checked out with "I thought Christmas only came once a year." Naming a character just for that line... transparent and painful. Insulting.

Enter Daniel Craig. Many hated the casting. I was indifferent, for obvious reasons, but thought it would be a failure. I was wrong. Craig plays Bond as the arrogant jerk, the man entirely full of who he is, confident he is lethal, dangerous, and unstoppable. These are the men that get the women today, sadly.

His nihilistic approach makes Bond smarter. Bond isn't playing for anything other than his own belief that no one can stop him. He's there to continually find ways to prove himself stronger, smarter, and more dangerous than the next guy. It works. It works well.

The action worked well, too. Little hint of CGI gloss, and little shaky-cam. Unlike the Bourne movies, and nearly every current action film, the fist fights are clear.

The movie is too long, this is true. The last half an hour, though important to turn Bond into who Bond will be, could have been further condensed. There are hints of Bond's off-the-chart computer skills, which I feel makes him too perfect and too cerebral, he works better as an animal, a killing machine.

And perhaps, for purists, this should not have been Bond. In truth, he never felt like Bond to me, and hearing him say his name was jarring. Perhaps he should have been a new 00, coming up the ranks as Bond is transitioning out of the field. Perhaps that would have been too confusing.

As a whole, though, the film works. It works well. It's Bond reborn. Reborn for modern times, thankfully done intelligently instead of panderingly. It's a very different beast, and quite proud of it.
10/10
Outstanding!
janewillis197727 November 2006
I've never been much of a Bond fan to be honest, but this was amazing. Daniel Craig was fantastic as Bond, I thought the portrayal of his character as being more of a risk taker in the early days was perfect. He would have obviously made mistakes in his early 00 career, and he certainly learnt quickly that he could trust no-one but himself

The action sequences are amazing, particularly the free-running at the start of the film, they literally breath-taking and the minimal use of CGI was a real bonus.

Presumably they will have to write new stories now to fit in between Casino Royale and the next one (Dr No?), I really can't wait to see what they come up with next, I'm definitely a new-age Craig Bond fan!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not so bad...
Binoche20 December 2006
Well, let's say it was worth waiting, but... Not so bad entertainment. Not very good film of action and appanage. It was not easy to rebuild the world James Bond, mainly because Pierce Brosnan (and, before him, Roger Moore) had completely destroyed the "good/bad guy" mix from the legendary times of Sean Connery... Well, it must be said that Daniel Craig proves that he can relate with that past — and still be true. The film has some very good moments of dialogs, specially in the train, with Craig and Eva Green. What about the Chris Cornell song?... Serious candidate to the title of worst Bond song ever. Who chose that musical mediocrity?
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
00 7 is back. Blonder bigger and better than before.
devilnofear-131 October 2007
Yes I will admit that I was scared at first as every body else was of the lead star Daniel Craig taking over the James bond role . he was blond they said he was to small peopled screamed that he Had blue eyes . Many thing here said about him but one thing is for sure he did not resemble the other actors. I did not now what to expect of him but one thing is for sure is that what ever I thought than now I now that Mr. Craig is perfect was not only perfect for this role he was talented and was better than any bond actor to have ever plaid the role. Not only that he bring life to this character but he broth the character back the bond that was in the books (THE DARK AND Mysterious AGENT THAT FLEMING CREATHED and NOT THIS funny LIKE sarcastic bond like MOORE AND Brosnan PLAYED IT.)

Casino royale . The story: After receiving license to kill from the MI-6, the secret agent James Bond follows his leads and avoids the destruction of the greatest airplane in the world in Miami plotted by the evil banker Le Chiffre to crash the bonds in the stock market and break the air flight company. The banker loses the funds of international terrorist organizations and organizes a poker game in Casino Royale, in Montenegro, to raise the money of the investors. James Bond travels with the British accountant Vesper Lynd to bet and defeat La Chiffre and force him to look for protection with the MI-6, disclosing the names of the terrorists. James wins, but is double-crossed, in a game of betrayals and murder.

The movie is fun to watch. Mr. Craig gives his best performance to date. Great scene finally no more cgi in a bond movie like in die and other day. Finally they understood that the real stuff is better. director martin Campbell is known for is amassing action scene in films and is also known for his acclaimed bond movie golden eye (1995)this not a director that as a lot of good movie but when it comes to entertain he does not believe in the evolution of cgi and that what makes him special as a director .( for example When a cars explodes it explodes when bildings fall a apart they build a set and that is rare these days).The best explanation for a bond intro the bleeding eye the amazing black and whit that introduces the bond character as a killer. A great job by actress Eva Green that plays the character Vesper Lynd which is the best bond girl to day. And they finally broth back Felix in the bond sage played by Jeffrey Wright.

When I saw die and other day I thought that the bond series would Had died whit it. And also killed mi hopes for the upcoming casino royale . But not to fear the series is far from being dead it just got reborn for the 3 time. (The first time was when Moore took the roll and the second was when Brosnan did golden eye.) and you finally have a villain that is worthy and that you could remember like in the old days Le Chiffre .(example gold finger scaramanga and Dr no ext…) bad brutal and mean that villain was exceptional.

For the people that like Mr. Moore and Mr. Brosnan might not in joy this movie because it is not a funny movie whit invisible cars . But for the people that like Sean Connery and timothy Dalton for there serious style then this is the movie is for you . And if you are a die hard fan of the bond saga then just buy this movie you will not be deceived. this a movie that is faithful to the book and to the fans .I as a fan loved it and it is in my top ten of movie of all time in joy it and have fun whit it. You will not regret it I promise
9/10
Best James Bond Yet
jellyink521 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The new James Bond movie was far better than I had expected. I admit, I haven't watched many of the older James Bond movies, so I have naught to compare it to, but I really enjoyed this film. From a woman's perspective, this story is one of the better ones. It contains a love story, which I believe the director captures beautifully. This movie explains Bond's attitudes towards women in other installments. Eva Green was a sassy, smart Vesper Lynd, and Daniel Craig was ruthless and charming as the new Bond. The action wasn't too violent, so still suitable for kids 10+ (minus the torture scene). A highly enjoyable movie. The new James Bond is on the way, and I, for one, am loving it.
6/10
Casino Royale is not one "movie Bond"
rodriguezandreseduardo15 December 2006
Is a fraud consider to Casino Royale one movie Bond. When one leaves the room of cinema realizes that the elements that keep relation with 007 are that it appears M, that the main personage is called James Bond and who the car that takes is a Aston Martin. also, the personage has undergone a presumed update that what it has done is to denature it, leaving it devoid of the elements that made one single one and matchless: glamor, sophistication, and elegance. In this bond abortion, the personage interpreted by Daniel Craig lacks all those qualities, and, is but, it deceives of certain classics characteristics mark of the house, like the Martini with mixed Vodka not shaken that usually requests Bond to drink. But they are not mistaken, do not throw the fault to him to Daniel Craig; note in each one of the planes that the best thing if same has given in this movie, and is clear the exigency that has supposed the paper to him. And frankly, it does not dislike much to me like James Bond; I recognize that it is not Pierce Brosnan (the 007 along with the magic Are Connery that but has convinced to me), but has an interesting point. But, like to say, she is not the culprit. The culprit of this resignation to the roots (or but well the guilty) is trio of scriptwriters that has ruined the continuity of the saga, who lasted 40 years in single movie: to include a.m. like Judi Dench (when in Goldeneye express mention to that this becomes to replace to the previous M, interpreted by Bernard Lee) is an attack to the work of hundreds of professionals throughout 20 films. In the same way it supposes it to reinvent the reason by which Bond obtains the Aston Martin DB5, that, we remember, in Goldfinger, Q, the one in charge to provide with gadgets to Bond, it provided the agent. Neither the change of protagonists nor of times habia caused that that continuity was undermined. And without but, with a stroke of the pen, Neal Purvis and others destroy a tax exemption that survived almost half century. Exactly it is the context in that they surround to Bond and the character that they attribute to him (coarse, of hard type, really, of nice boy of beach mixed with bloodthirsty assassin) what ends an unpolluted image in all its existence. The resignation to the traditions of Bond is manifest when, or in the introduction, the famous the 007 are obviate white circulates of Logo, and they are refuted when we see contemptuous mentions it express to the smoking or at the Martini it arrives mentioned. The absence of emblematic personages as Q or Moneypenny also shines by their absence, although certainly to this does not complete either lies down to him in too much lack. Therefore, we concluded that the movie is shipwrecked with regard to which to be able to call bond style, not only because the tape modernizes in some aspects to Bond (as those of Brosnan hacian) if that does resigning of way it does not specify that they cause that Bond is Bond and is not a Steven Segal with years less. To the case those go that say that a personage of nobody I generate must renew or die, with which I agree, but without letting be what it is. The James Bond who leaves of this movie is not 007, is a gross assassin and with an incommensurable ego that, chances of the destiny, is called equal. Asi, lacking movie of its classics elements and therefore of the incentive that compensated to the previous deliveries its ridiculous arguments, we must describe Royale Casino avoiding that is a movie of James Bond by means of merely concrete criteria to the case.
10/10
Movie was excellent!!!
papay00723 December 2006
I think that the creation of Bond which Craig made is the closest to what Ian Fleming has in mind...

Craig refreshed the role and make the movie more dynamic. I think that Martin Campbell should make another, at least, two movies, he knows what it's all about:)

Daniel should appear in another few movies with bond (till he get's old ;) ).

Great actor , great screenplay , great director and great music! Movie like no other, i suppose it is even better than movies with S.Connery, which was my favorite.

i would like to thank people who made this movie because we (BOND FANS) needed a movie like this...

once again GREAT JOB......

Sorry for my English.

Bond, James Bond.
8/10
An instant classic? A fan review.
rifran24 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Now, i don't normally write comments/reviews that often, and normally only feel motivated to when a film is particularly good or horrendously bad. The good news is that Casino Royale does not fall into the latter category. I am, as many have written before, a huge bond fan, DVDs, collectible cars, books, all of that stuff. Casino Royale felt to me to be the quintessential modern bond flick. It has everything, it really does, apart from Q. Not that this annoys me at all. Strangely enough, myself and a friend of mine both thought that it worked well without this formulaic section in it. As it is Q wasn't in the book anyway so....

The lack of gadgets suited the weighted storyline with it's well delivered twists, bluffs and double bluffs. We see a vulnerable bond, learning the ropes, making mistakes whilst balancing with the 'known bond' through signs of what we know is set to come, one liners, over confidence and of course unrelenting attitude towards the mission at hand.

Daniel Craig for my money is an excellent bond. He's as convincing a fighter as Connery ever was (remember the train fight in from Russia with love), he can actually act very well and he seems to be dynamic enough to deliver lines convincingly in most areas. Two highlights were his interaction with nearly matched Vespa and his reaction to Le Chiffre' torture (Noooooo, the other side!!).

Girls - Two absolute hotties, SPOILER - two femme fatales who fit perfectly into the new world of bond.

The car features briefly which in a way is a shame but understandable, given that he is making mistakes and not being the seemingly mind reading bond that the formula usually delivers. It felt good to me to be watching a bond film and being surprised at some of the outcomes. This scene in particular reminded me of his unsuccessful getaway in Goldfinger.

The Stunts - Well, there's plenty of them. I know, lets put some Le parkour/free-running in, thats not really been done before, which in my opinion is exactly what bond films should be doing as far as action goes. That is, setting the pulse racing to a new type of action, perhaps not done before or an unexpected variation on a more familiar stunt. Hell of a scene anyway.

There's more to say but i'm done. I could say it was too long, a blond bond bothers me, it needed more Aston Martin or more gadgets but i'd be lying. I say, get over it.

This was an excellent bond film which will be appreciated probably a bit more by the fans of the originals or long term fans, and definitely the right direction to take the franchise. If you liked Die another day, you probably won't like this and really should be asking yourself why you like Die another day anyway, it sucked! Overall, I've given it 8/10, i was really surprised as well to have enjoyed it so much, especially given that this is technically the 'follow-up' to Die another day, the worst bond film for so many reasons. Makes me wonder though, how do you follow that up?
7/10
My review
manikgarg_in19 November 2006
If you are a die-hard Bond Movie fan, then let me warn you, you are in for a serious disappointment. There are no gizmos, no "Shaken not Stirred" Vodka Martinis, no typical bond movie stuff. The silhouettes of femme-fatales in the opening track are conspicuously absent. But hold on, I am not saying the movie is crap, its pretty good. It's more about the evolution of Bond as Bond.

Contrary to my expectations, Daniel Craig has done a great job as James Bond and Eva Green is absolutely stunning.

In case you don't know it by now, the movie opens with Bond earning his double '0' status after two quick assassinations. Some fast pace action follows with some really thrilling stunts moving from Uganda to Madagascar to Bahamas to Miami before it finally reaches the Casino Royale at Montenegro. The Poker game is slow and tends to drag the movie. Almost getting killed by poisoning, losing a round to his enemy, winning the big stakes, getting captured and whipped by his enemies, 007 does it all. And for a change, professes his love for the leading lady.

But that's not the end... A bollywood style climax awaits you. After all no movie is bond movie till you hear the golden five words "The name's Bond, James Bond".
9/10
A long overdue vindication for Ian Fleming
jeffoneonone18 November 2006
Like most people, I grew up with the Bond films. The film series naturally led me to seek out the Ian Fleming novels, and I was struck by how much different they were from most of the films. Ultimately, however, I still liked the movies better.

However, time and my own maturity took its toll on my opinion of these increasingly by-the-numbers exercises in inanity -- with Die Another Day, the last Bond flick, being the final straw. From that point on, I no longer even cared if another Bond film was ever made again.

But that's when I started revisiting the Fleming novels. While hardly great literature, they had a streak of sophistication, truly sexy sexuality, and sadism that was irresistible. If only the filmmakers would realize what they had within the pages of those wonderful pieces of pulp fiction -- ones they had mutilated on screen for so many years by overhauling plots and making over-the-top mockeries of the source material.

But tonight, upon the release of Casino Royale, I think Ian Fleming is finally sleeping peacefully in his grave. Well played, Daniel Craig, Martin Campbell, Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli -- well played indeed.
8/10
Casino Royale (2006)
kenmai11 December 2006
Having seen all the Bond movies, I quite liked this one as I felt it was uncluttered with gadgets & car chasers. I felt that Daniel Craig played the role of James Bond refreshingly, as he was not the debonair that Moore & Brosnan brought to the role, but more like a diamond in the rough. Probably more like what a secret agent would be like...........not so much the womaniser but an agent doing his job for his country. The action seen near the beginning in Madagascar was the normal 'Oh, yeah, right!' whilst leaping across the construction site & surviving each terrible jump or fall, but then that is part of the Bond mystic, that mostly no matter what, he will survive, to live another day! Anyway, that's my view...............
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Finally - a Bond film worthy of my (and your) time.
londonguy_uk21 August 2007
**Spoilers**. (Watch the film first)

Although i, like many my age, have a soft spot for Connery's Bond films this latest incarnation of Casino Royale is, for me, the best Bond film to date.

Why ?

Well, quite simply because its a film that successfully explains to me who James Bond is - and, more importantly, why he is.

It just so happens to do it extremely stylishly too.

Quite frankly i find it very depressing to read so many narrow minded reviews of this film from members of this community - many of whom gave it one star. This is a travesty.

OK - so this film makes some bold changes to the Bond formula (and has some notable omissions) that seem to have many fans 'up in arms'. This is just ridiculous, and i didn't miss anything that had been 'left out'.

In fact the whole film had a fresh vibrancy that has surely brought much needed new life to a dying franchise. Those who go on and on about the time line of events being out just don't get that this was a 'reboot' - and even so it has very little impact on the quality of entertainment on offer here.

Also gone are the silly pantomime 'cat stroking' villains and busty, one dimensional love interests. In comes a much rougher, grittier, darker tone revealing a flawed Bond with (shock horror) some emotional depth and, therefor, a believability not seen since the (very) best Connery efforts.

Only this one is, IMO, even better.

There is so much to praise about the film, from the huge technical achievements - like the unbelievably athletic chase sequence near the start - the often brutal and very realistic fight sequences to the brave choice of title sequence - without the usual sexist over-tones - this film just doesn't put a foot wrong. It even has a great opening theme song (sung by Chris Cornell).

There are, of course, also the superb performances of the entire cast - and its these that really brings the film to life. Craig's performance is successful enough to show the emotional side of Bond - one we have rarely seen before. The impact that seeing Bond get his heart broken will have on you will stay with you long after the film has ended. You feel his pain - especially after seeing how much hard work falling in love is for him in the first place. Watching him fight for but, ultimately, lose that love is heart breaking - and really spells out why he becomes such a cold and emotionless agent in later outings.

Daniel Craig does a superb job with a great script (for a Bond film) - and all his early detractors (who are big enough to admit when they are wrong) must have been very red faced after seeing him bring to life the most three dimensional, believable Bond (yet) to the screen.

Eva Green is another inspired choice by the casting director. Her portrayal of Vesper Lynd (Bonds main love interest) is subtle, intelligent and sexy. She successfully portrays her as a woman who can not only take Bond on - but also has much in common with him. She seduces him in a much more emotional and convincing manner than we have become used to in previous Bond films - which really brings their relationship to life.

Mads Mikkelsen must also get a mention for playing a truly nasty Bond foe who proves a worthy rival. Even those actors in supporting roles give unusually solid performances. Judy Dench is as good as ever - despite a small role in this outing.

This film was a very nice surprise. I hope further outings stick to its much more gritty, dark, realistic formula - as it is a hugely successful one that i enjoyed immensely - something i couldn't honestly say of a Bond film in a very, very long time.
6/10
Where was Q, and Miss MoneyPenny?!
Neil_b6726 November 2006
Q was missing! Gadgetry was missing - it makes Bond what it is.

The only trouble with being a Bond character after a very good Bond character, is that they tend not to last very long, i.e. Timothy Dalton after Sean Connery. For some reason, the new films seem to detract from what Bond is supposed to be and film goers will soon dictate whether a bond movie is successful or not. I suspect that Daniel Craig, although a very good and professional actor, may not last for very many films, unlike Connery, Moore, and Brosnan. Making the film away from the traditional way a bond film is made, just is not the right way to treat the bond culture. The public will have their say and will vote with their pockets on this one.

Where were Miss Money Penny, Q, and the laboratory of gadgets and engineer's working on them at HQ in London? OK, we realise that this was a way to get Daniel Craig into the role, but was this the way Pierce Brosnan was given the role?!

I am unfortunately tempted to think that this may go down as another alternative bond movie, but as it steers away from the normal style, and may not win the complete public vote. It is full of action, suspense and thriller, Yes, but Bond has always also had that element of prediction in the films as well, it was missing here. Plus there were not as many comedy moments either, and no high speed car or vehicle chases, like we are used to seeing.

I hope Daniel Craig is able to turn things around and be another Brosnan, otherwise he will simply turn into another 'in between' bond like Timothy Dalton. Sorry Daniel, but please prove me wrong!

(c) Neil Burns 2006
10/10
Possibly the best Bond film to date
simonm34902 December 2006
Casino Royale is so much more original than previous Bond films, such as Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough. Many people have doubted Daniel Craig as the choice for the new James Bond. I'll admit that at first when I heard he was chosen; I was not sure what to make of that decision.

He is an underrated actor, but this performance in particular will hopefully get him more recognition. He has a meaner stare than the other Bonds, which is one of the things that makes him better.

The action scenes are done excellently and the poker game is enthralling to watch. The plot is a breath of fresh air and I thought what a brilliant film it was long after leaving the cinema. The ending does not let the film down at all; see for yourself how good this film is.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Casino Loyale
leinad_slin25 November 2006
I've never been a super bond fan, but still whenever a new bond movie comes out, I have to see it. The last times I've been disappointed over the outcome.

As I entered the movie theater, I wasn't expecting much. I was thinking Casino Royale would be the same old.

As I came out of the of the theater, I had a big smile upon my face that told people around me that I was pleased. The movie had blown me away.

You guys know that feeling one has when just having seen a movie for the first time (that it's the best of its kind)? That feeling usually passes when you see the movie again. But when I saw Casino Royale again, it was as good as the first time.

Daniel Craig has taken the place as my favorite bond - after Roger Moore. His face is cold, he acts like a gentleman and he smirks like one.

Casino Royale has all the action and more (a little bit too much sometimes). You will not be disappointed. Never before have I felt and seen such a complete Bond film. Even the bad guy was BAD! And that makes me happy.

I give it an 8, which means: GO SEE IT!
10/10
Bond Is Back
gildavis5 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anyone who has read the Fleming novels would have to agree that Daniel Craig's performance in the latest Bond offering was indeed excellent. It was Bond as Ian Fleming intended. Hard, brutal, to the point and no nonsense. Every guy in the theatre was truly wincing during the chair sequence and I have to laugh thinking about Roger Moore in his prime trying to do that one instead of Craig. After something like that, could you really blame anyone for drowning themselves in Dom Perignon '53 and Vodka Martini's, smoking 200 cigarettes a day or eating rich french food like it was running out of style? After something like that scene I'm afraid bedding attractive ladies would be out for awhile, even with Viagra.
9/10
A splendid time to be had!
BrotherBarnacle14 December 2006
And lo, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when Brother Daniel was revealed as the latest incarnation of our beloved Bond and many sleepless nights were spent in the firmament for the want of a dark-haired soul or two who might lay siege to our imagination in the playing of the part.

Yet it came to pass that, upon partaking of the viewing (over 2hrs at the price and a bargain, to be sure), many people, self included, were heard to mutter up their sleeves "Bloody 'ell, he's not half bad, that young chap from across the road", for 'twas so, that was where he had lived for many years of his youthful times.

And so, I beseech thee, fellow believers of the Bond, mock ye not in haste and take ye to a place of the worshipful celluloid, for verily, ye ain't seen nothing 'til ye have dipped thy toes in the cool waters of the new Bond. Here endeth the lesson.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Near perfection...
paulfeher20 November 2006
I must admit, I was one of those die-hard Bond fanatics that believed that the franchise was slowly going out of business after Pierce Brosnan was not/had not re-signed following Die Another Day. When I learned that Daniel Craig was proclaimed the new Bond, I was very skeptical about the actors ability to step into the big shoes left behind by Brosnan, Moore and Connery. Well, as the saying goes "If the shoes fit, wear'em". For Craig, and without exaggeration, those shoes were not big enough.

One could categorize this film as one of the best Bond films of all time. All the elements are there; the cars, the locations, the girl (and what a girl),the villain, the action, the suspense and the intrigue. But what differentiates this movie from all others is Daniel Craig. He brings a completely different perspective to Bond, one we are not accustomed to seeing. This Bond is blunt, tough, gadget-free and much less predictable than the earlier Bonds. He carries the film with flair, ease and conviction. Of course, the rest of the cast deserves special mention. Judy Dench comes through with another notable performance and what to say about Eva Green; a pure delight, both from a visual and acting perspective. She brings depth and sophistication to her character without breaching the essence of the "Bond Girl" we all look forwards to seeing.

If you are a Bond connoisseur, you can only appreciate the positive effects this film will have on the future of the franchise. After Die Another Day, we all wondered where the series would go next. In this regard, if you are a newcomer to the franchise, you have joined the club at a very exciting time. If you decide to check-out this film, don't wait until it comes out on video. You want to see this in theaters as the big screen and the big sound will make this Bond experience even more remarkable; and you know a film is remarkable when the audience claps at the end of the film. This was a first for me...for a Bond film that is.

9 out of 10. Lets leave the producers some place for improvement for the next Bond.
1/10
Not make sense bond, is this James bourne?
stuvvstores8 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very not make sense from the start.

For example ; bond chases the burned face with an over-acting chase where the burned face is so fast and agilefull doing parkour, but bond just runs like not a trained special agent, then the burned face is cornered, then takes out a gun but when the trigger is pulled the gun turns out to be no bullets , why did he carried a gun without bullets? And why did he firing a gun that he must knew had no bullets? I think it's hard for me to continue watching this, so how could I watch the next chapter with it?

This should listed as "fantasy action movie"

And I still can't believe this is James bond movie, I can't find the 007 styles with his charm, gadgets, intelligence, etc.
8/10
Bond Revival
avocade1 December 2006
I had somewhat high expectations walking in to this one. And my appreciation, while starting out a bit low (title sequences, somewhat cheesy first chase sequence) grew considerably from the middle towards the end.

Daniel Craig is an excellent Bond, and Eva Green is one of my favorite Bond Babes from now on. The mystery, depth and sheer beauty she brought to her character is certainly up there with the best. Oscar nomination anyone?

Mads Mikkelsen was better than I expected. I'm actually very much anticipating the next Bond flick. (Which certainly wasn't the case after Pierce Brosnan's last.)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Why I Don't Like Casino Royale....
jessicahyc22 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
When watching Casino Royale directed by Martin Campbell, I was filled with the uncomfortable feelings about how they are building, and even using, the female leading character in the movie. After watching, I immediately did some research and some online browsing, what I have found is that most people are very happy about the female character building in the movie. Casino Royale, as the first Bond movie of the Daniel Craig era, was well-received among public that critics were even referring to it as the one Bond movie that is deconstructing the concept of "Bond Girl". However, in my opinion, Vesper Lynd's impressive character setting is more likely to be a commercial compromise than a real deconstruction of Bond Girl because the female gaze that generally exists in movies still exists in the narrative, character building, visual representation, and character ending of Casino Royale (2006). Following will be the attempt to prove the above based on the film itself. Scenes from the film, narratives of the screenplay, and character building, as well as the plot will be analyzed and discussed in order to provide solid proves toward the arguments.

Before we start, we shall first understand what exactly is the concept of "Bond Girl", or, more precisely, what exactly is the stereotypical female character in a traditional Hollywood movie. In From "figurative males" to action heroines: further thoughts on active women in the cinema (Hills, 1999), Elizabeth Hills stated that "cinematic genre codes and cultural gender codes position female characters as the passive, immobile and peripheral characters of Hollywood action cinema" We can see from a lot of Hollywood movies have this kind of stereotypical female character. There're too many examples like Rachael (Sean Young) in Blade Runner (1982), Claire (Emmanuelle Béart) in Mission: Impossible (1996), all female characters in the Fast and Furious series, Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) in the Matrix (1999), Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) in Spider-man (2002), Deborah (Lily James) in Baby Driver (2017), or some more recent characters such as Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) in Tenet (2020)......They are passive characters, who has actions happen toward them instead of acting as a motive to push the plot forward. They are all more or less a sexual symbol, they usually are, or will be, the protagonist's lover, acting as a fuel to the hero's journey. They were either waiting to be rescued or causing trouble to the hero's mission. Another kind of female character stereotype is Femme Fatale. In the book Femme Fatales, Mary Ann Doane stated that ""her most striking characteristics, perhaps, is e fact that she never really is what she seems to be. She barbers a threat which is not entirely legible, predictable, or manageable." (Doane, 1991). Take Wonderly (Mary Aster) in The Maltese Falcon (1941) as an example. She shows up being a mysterious woman, beautiful, gorgeous, but full of secrets. She carries a gun. She smokes. She's a liar. She's dangerous. She plays with the protagonist and brings trouble to the situation. And of course, she develops romantic relationship with the protagonist. Femme Fatale is a symbol of love and mystery, lies and danger, and she has to be beautiful and seducing. It's very common and even too common in the Hays Code era and still sometimes appears in the contemporary cinema world.

In Casino Royale, Vesper Lynd showed up with an all-black costume, trousers, blazer, and belt, "a slightly masculine clothing", as Bond stated, instead of sexy dinner dress with large amount of nudity, but still looks gorgeous. She's confident, aggressive, sarcastic, and acting professional while Bond is trying to flirt with her. After a conversation of "contest" between the Bond and Lynd, we can see that each of them made a profile of one another. Lynd didn't lose the "contest", instead, she won it. Some might take this as a positive sign of the female character building, as female is now taking over the power, or at least has the same level of power with the male this time. It is true. This is a huge progress of the film industry to at least show some respect to female characters. However, there're some hidden points that suggest the opposite. In this "power competition", Lynd took it very seriously that she wanted to win it so badly, she tried her best to get the power over Bond. She was holding an aggressive attitude toward the whole conversation. As for Bond, he is the one that is actually taking control of the whole conversation, he was relaxed and was playing with this whole situation. He was arose the interest in Vesper as she was trying so hard to act "masculine". From the last shot of this scene, we see Bond showing a smile on his face that tells the audience that he was actually having fun with the "contest" with Vesper. He didn't take the whole thing seriously. He took it as an interesting game to see how a woman try to be intimidating. This is a silent point that we need to take a closer look to find out. There is a distain toward female hiding behind the seemingly innovated female character setting scene.

In the approximately middle of the film, there's a main action scene that Bond strangled a man in front of Lynd. This is probably the most obvious part in the whole movie that shows the distain toward female. It is true that female character in this scene finally act as a helping hand to the male character of an action scene, deceiving the audience of a powerful female figure. The aftermath of this scene in the film is somehow more important in my interpretation. As Bond professionally done his job and still have the spare power to confront Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) back in the casino, Lynd clearly got shocked by the fact that a man was killed in front of her, especially when strangle is a really brutal way to kill one person. Back in the room, Lynd for the first time showed her vulnerability, having symptoms of PTSD, sitting in the corner of the wall in the shower with a blank stare. Bond showed up, licked and sucked her fingers, comforted her and eventually held her in his arms telling her everything is alright. First of all, the bathroom scene is very obviously sexual suggestive, especially with the finger licking and sucking. This is a substitute of the traditional sex scene that usually happens between Bond girls and Bond., there's no innovation here. Secondly, the female character, even though acting as this intimidating and aggressive, still need the comfort from a man. This scene sarcastically shows how ridiculous the female character is.

As the film approaching the end of the second act, a femme fatale appeared. Bond made a mistake that cost him the money he had, he needed more money to continue to play the game. He ask Lynd for help as she represented the treasurer, she refused, the conversation ended with Bond calling her an "bloody idiot" with Lynd leaving in her resolute. The narrative shaped her as a cold-blooded women who doesn't care about the innocent lives as she was just doing her job. She was causing trouble in the protagonist's mission. A femme fatale is born in this scene. And as the film keeps going on, we discovered that Lynd has her own secret that cheated Bond on purpose of her own. Another typical characteristic that femme fatale has.

The ending is also providing the irony of the female character. As Bond found out that he was cheated, he immediately moved on, calling her "the bitch". As the female character, Lynd, she actually did her own work that she left a message for Bond to finish his mission. However, the female character was eventually waiting to be saved by Bond, a male character, and tried to "make everything up" by leaving a message. Familiar character building in traditional spy movies.

Some might argue that the male character is built in a radical way that is the deconstruction of the Bond girl symbol. In "Designing Character: Costume, Bond Girl, and Negotiating Representation" (Severson, 2015), the author stated that "these films present a change in the depiction of Bond form the subject of gaze (i.e. The active gazer) to the object of gaze (i.e. Passive gazer); in Casino Royale he takes over the traditionally exhibitionist ole of the Bond Girl." I partially agree with this statement. The great amount of nudity of Bond and, probably the most obviously part, the interrogation scene with Bond being tied in a chair unnecessarily naked, are all suggesting this change. However, what I'm questioning is the motivation behind it. As was stated above, the character building and the narrative of Vesper Lynd clearly indicated the misogyny attitude. I see those nudity of male character as a commercial compromise to please the female audience. The film gives out a seemingly storage female character and a teasing male body and character because the creators realized the importance of female audience market in the contemporary entertainment industry, They are using this strategy in order to win over the box office. And it worked, Casino Royale was the most successful movie in that year and the highest-grossing Bond movie until Skyfall (2021).

In conclusion, Casino Royale is clearly overrated in the gender presentation. Vesper Lynd's impressive character setting is more likely to be a commercial compromise than a real deconstruction of Bond Girl because the female gaze that generally exists in movies still exists in the narrative, character building, and character ending.
7/10
It barley makes it a bond film
octagon197326 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Realistic, (too much for a bond movie )Film, needs a lot more Action, specially car chases, too much dialog but still i gave it a 7 i Would see it again. Must pick better bond girls next time...Also they should pick better scenery and make an effort on following previous bond movies It seems the director wanted to change the character attitude, What i didn't like for example is seeing James bond on a ford Mondeo at least make it a mustang for crying out loud!, can you imagine Sean Connery driving a Ford Taurus!. Not my favorite bond film! Also is it me or some of the chases reminded me of Terminator films? Or maybe it was the acting of the villain in the gas scene inside the airport
10/10
The best BOND?
brandomack21 November 2006
Casino Royale is very possibly the first Bond film to OUT DO Connery's previous flicks.

I'm very happy for Daniel Craig, as he put his blood, sweat, and tears into this film and it truly shows. I knew he would be a great BOND after seeing layer cake a few years ago.

I'm sure some will disagree, however Daniel Craig has managed to top the list as the most naturally portrayed James Bond ever. Sure, we all have a fondness for Connery but, as they say....the proof is in the pudding. and the pudding is damn good.

Congratulations Daniel Craig on succeeding to be what many doubted.

Start it all over again, breathe new life into the franchise. Give the world what it has needed for so long - Quality.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
At last!
eddie-saunders16 January 2007
I read the Bond books when I was in my early teens. This film portrays the character I remember from those books. Sorry kids but Bond has left the realm of children's fiction this time and I sincerely hope they make more in the same vein. This franchise could seriously experience a new lease of life after this showing. This is not the stuff of the hackneyed Christmas day afternoon Bond film... For fear of upsetting many many people, in my opinion only of course, Daniel Craig IS the best (read that "most accurate" if you prefer)Bond to date. He is the image that I had in my head when I read Fleming's books. One thing I noticed that I feel is a good example of the difference between this and the rest of the Bond films is the brutality of the various fight scenes. That is not to say that they are unnecessarily violent but they certainly give the impression that the participants are really fighting for their lives and there is no rule book to hand. This is not sanitised or sugar coated, I guess the telling fact is that when you walk away from this film you don't leave thinking "I could be Bond".
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I'm ver ydisappointed.
movieworld1-117 January 2007
Hi, I have to say I'm very disappointed by the new Bond.

Granted, he has a good body, but the face is all wrong. Just left me sad that they are taking Bond in this direction. I really liked Pierce Bronson and didn't think he was too old for the role. Just when we were getting used to Pierce as Bond, they change the actor. This Bond just doesn't fit the role and every actor that's ever played Bond. I guess they're looking to shake things up, but I think it was a very poor choice to cast this guy as Bond. Look at everyone that has played Bond, than look at this guy. Wrong guy. He just doesn't fit in the scheme of things.

Sorry, but that's the way I feel.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It wasn't a Bondfilm anymore but for a normal film, it was good
vanrusselt-kenny25 January 2007
It was a good movie but as you compare it with other Bond-movies, you will see that the real Bond-elements were not in it.

For example, Moneypenny wasn't in the movie, Where is Q and his cool gadgets?!? And there were also other things I did not liked in this movie like were was his force on women and stuff For me was it a great movie but not a Bond-film and that's a shame. Maybe they let that out because it was his "first" assignment but for me isn't this a Bond-classic.

But don't let I scare you off by seeing it because maybe you don't think about it like i do.

I hope the next one will be more Bond again.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best James Bond film ever made!
ArefiAl18 November 2006
I really admire the whole James Bond actors job through decades specially Sean Connery and pierce Brosnan but Craig may not look as sexy and handsome as Brosnan still is more violent,intelligent and etc. The film did a very good job to drag the audiences to the end and when you expect the film to finish the other side of the coin reveals.

There are some very good humorous dialogs in the film where it does not let audiences fall into sleep. Still i think the torture part was very annoying for me or most of the audiences.The action scenes has a better charisma rather than the other James bond films since Craig acted vigorously to the enemies and god they are intense.I liked Eva Green more than any actresses stood in front of James Bond and here she showed her real and deep love to him. Enemies in this film may not look as cruel as other James Bond specially the Gold Finger and torture James Bond as sadistic as Koreans in Die Another Day,still they make you hate them to the end.

finally, i think this is the real James bond movie i have been waiting for it in years! I still looking forward to watch the sequel in 2008!!!
10/10
The true spirit of the character, finally.
jorgelararivera9 December 2006
In all of the Bond movies, including the outstanding Thunderball and Goldfinger, we were used to see a character that hided the real nature of the spy, the tragical one. Finally in this one we get to see the real dimension of the agent, with his weakness exposed, his recognition of being a bad guy, and his confusion about his career. Less gadgets and cheap humor. More violence, blood, and physical strength, (as in the Fleming 's books). Fortunately we still see beautiful, breathtaking women and the same elegance that the franchise has got us used to... and of course, the martini cocktails. I know there will be a debate about who of all the actors have interpreted the best 007. I still think that Connery gets the first price. In some scenes it gives the impression that Daniel Craig is nervous about the responsibility, but I wouldn't too far from Pierce Brosnan, fighting for the second place. It will be very interesting watching and updated version of the first movies of the saga. With the new ingredients, the audiences will get to see a fresher and more realistic Commander James Bond, IHMS. BRAVO.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Worth watching
machado-718 November 2006
When i got the passes for the premiere of Casino Royale i was in two minds......eventually i decided to go for the show. I was so engrossed in the movie right from the beginning and were the other audience in the cinema hall equally. This is movie is totally different then the previous Bond movies , no supernatural stunts , no fictional gadgets , no womanizing bond et., Craig has played the role in a utmost superb manner , the bond is truly a human. The scene where is under water trying to save Eva Green is so emotional that it truly touches ones heart. The starting chasing scene in Madagascar was also fabulous. Indeed there are so many points i would like to mention basically this movie is all about action, romance , strong dialogs , good locations , thrilling shots ....its an amazing and a well directed movie ...... I suggest everyone to watch Casino Royale and your money will not be wasted............
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Judi's the only thing worth watching!
sarahjlanderson10 February 2007
Just walked out of this movie (for the first time since abandoning that miserable old git Van Morrison in Manchester, England in 1995 - not that I suppose he lost any sleep over it). Daniel Craig is most fetching and wouldn't be thrown out of my house on a cold night but other than that - what boring, dated, macho nonsense!! The stunts don't even rate as particularly exciting any more - after all, we all know what computers can do these days, so even if some poor stuntman really is leaping about and defying death, we really don't appreciate it these days.

Talk about identifying a money-making formula forty-odd years ago and then just rehashing it whenever the tax bill arrives - sorry Barbara Broccoli and co., the world has progressed just a little since Ursula Andress and that bikini on the beach, stop cynically milking us of our ticket money just because it's got '007' written on it! Give them some credit though - the publicity machine manages to convince millions that this rubbish is worth watching and is no doubt keeping many a film crew away from the soup kitchens.

Just so's you don't think this is a complete hatchet job, I will praise the wonderful Dame Judi Dench - she gives depth and interest to M and is an inspired piece of casting. Good for you, Judi love, I'm sure you were handsomely paid for a few days of work on this piece of piffle.
9/10
Brilliant
MPFourEedz19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who ever come up with the idea to release Bond from his error free Super Suit Agent persona, I salute you.

Daniel Craig plays the role down to a key, the emphasis on James Bonds ego is emphasized strongly, almost destroying the whole operation in fact. It was nice to see, the hero make an *** out of himself in front of everyone. But still keep that class about himself. Thats Daniel Craig all the way, brilliant.

Im looking forward to the next Bonds. In 20 years, only three names are gonna be remembered with string comments about there Bond performances in my opinion. Sean Connery, Tim Dalton and Daniel Craig.

\m/
10/10
there was always something about him...
andy-lee200525 January 2007
back in 2005 when he was given the role, Daniel Craig faced opposition from the start. Die-hard Bond fans - with little room for stepping out of the over-suave comfort zone set by Moore and Brosnan - objected feverishly to the news, even going as far as setting up websites opposing the decision. But Craig has proved his critics completely and absolutely wrong. Not only has he delivered a performance with Bond-style precision and focus, he has taken the super suave spy back to his roots. He's cold, gritty and no longer invincible - physically or emotional - and has offered Bond-world a winning formula of true charisma and no-nonsense, hard-working, determined secret service hard man. He even snubs the suggestion of a Martini shaken or stirred.

Daniel Craig's future as James Bond? fairly secure I'd say
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The movie was awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
darkpoli31820 November 2006
Well first of all I must Daniel Craig was an awesome Bond. He surpassed my expectations completely. In the previews and stuff he didn't look Bondish but when you see him in the movie you will be surprised. The movie was great cause it had a bit of everything. Funny sarcastic moment, action (of course), you are always wanting to know who is the real bad guy. Well also I must add that Daniel Craig is in Sean Connery's league. The movie is highly recommended and I didn't see anything fake (no invisible Aston Martin, no ice constructed structures, etc.). So don't fear deception cause the movie is really good. I hope to see Daniel Craig in another Bond movie.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Casino Royale blows you away, but isn't able to defeat GoldenEye.
agentsmithx10024 November 2006
Casino Royale is a stunning film with great action, special effects and storyline. Craig praised Bond back into heaven, but in a different way. A lot of Bond things will not have there appearance in Casino Royale, but that shouldn't be a bad thing. The scenes at the poker table is an exception, cause this is where Bond becomes Bond in my eyes. The tension between the villain(Le Chiffre) and Bond while playing is very nicely shown and should be a memorable moment in the Bond history. Although Bond is explosively well back, Casino Royale isn't as good as GoldenEye. GoldenEye had a great script and contained all of the Bond features. Inspite of the great efforts they put in Casino Royale it runs to second or third place in my top. Nevertheless This will be one hack of a ride and a pleasurable 2,4 hours. I suggest you see it in the cinema's cause then you'll see the movie in all of it's glory. Possible best movie of 2006 and 2007:D Aron J. Vaessen
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Long Time Coming
jbeg20 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This one stays with you. I was a huge Bond fan growing up and remember seeing You Only Live Twice at a drive-in theater in Jersey when I was 8 years old. Not since Connery got thrown around by the Sumo Wrestler on that awesome Ken Adams office set has a fight scene worked so well. And Connery's unflappable god-like presence still lingers like the holy grail of cool for all time. Craig is brilliant as Bond, finally creating that explosive mix of vulnerability and ice-cold efficiency we've been missing for the past 40 years or so. The challenge for film makers has always been how to "get inside" Bond, but the last few decades have only given us the accessories. When the familiar John Barry theme (the original arrangement) smashes in at the end of the film for the first and only time all night, you realize it's been a long, long time coming.
10/10
Not just a replacement
Riddick5118 November 2006
this new bond has a tougher edge to him. excellent job by the new bond. i can say that i look forward to future bond movies with daniel craig.

the movie was excellent. this is probably the best movie i've seen in at least the last 3 to 5 years. every time i thought the movie was winding down and i would have to leave, it started back up again. really good experience in the theater with this one. this will definitely be part of my DVD collection.

timothy Dalton was horrible as bond. he was a bumbling idiot. there are only 2 movies i ever walked out of, one of them was a bond movie with Dalton (other one was a clockwork orange for those dying to know).
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Dark, Sexy, Funny, Brilliant
skinnedy18 November 2006
I'm of the Roger Moore James Bond era, so I can't really compare this to Connery, but this is the easily the best Bond film I've seen. It's action packed without being hokey (sp?). Think Jason Bourne more than James Bond. This is the Bond I've been waiting to see for years. Funny without being goofy, and a true butt kicker.

The acting was terrific, the Bond girls were smart and sexy. The action sequences were top notch. I loved the hand to hand combat. M was outstanding.

If you're looking for silly one-liners and comic book stunts, this is the wrong movie. If you're looking for a true action thriller with a smart, sexy, dark James Bond this is your movie.

I think really my only complaint in nearly 150 minutes of screen time was the last action sequence seemed to be a bit much, as if the movie could have been ended about 20 minutes earlier, but then they went and tied everything together well.

The best way I can explain this is Christian Bale Batman vs George Clooney Batman. Christian Bale's Batman is the one I hope to see more of. Daniel Craig's James Bond is the one I can't wait for another showing.

Outstanding.
10/10
Craig is second best bond
Rockylover4519 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daniel Craig is Bond. He may have blond hair and many have been calling him James blond but he is the closest thing to the books since Sean Connery by far.

Craig is great but i still wouldn't put him ahead of Sean Connery. Connery was suave and cold. Craig is cold. I love that he made his own bond instead of trying to copy another actors technique. He has Connery's brute style of fighting, he has Moore's humor, and timothy Dalton's style of coldness. He is in my opinion the next best bond to Connery.

So please go see Casino Royale i can tell you its not the same as a regular bond but thats because its a prequel. He really isn't bond yet. The classic theme doesn't even play until the end and he doesn't say the phrase "Bond, James Bond" until the last words of the movie. This is a great movie because this is saying that h is now bond, the secret agent we all love. The ending and beginning are the best I've seen in a Bond Movie.

Remember Connery will always be best but Craig is still second best. He brings many great qualities to the movie and I think the next Bond is gonna be great because he is Bond now and the next should have more gadgets more action more famous lines and more thems song and hopefull the same classic opening gun barrel scene.

Get ready because BOND IS BACK!!!!!!!
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed